V 


/ 


LIBRARY  1 


CONSTITUTIONAL 


HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 


VOLUME  I. 


/ 1 


THE 

V ( 

CONSTITUTIONAL 

HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND 

SINCE  THE  ACCESSION  OF  GEORGE  THIRD 


1760-1860 


By  THOMAS  ERSKINE  MAY,  C.B. 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 


O R 


3 TU 

K V S'  «- 

V I 


RIVERSIDE,  CAMBRIDGE  I 
STEREOTYPED  AND  PRINTED  BY 

H . 0 HOUGHTON. 


PREFACE. 


It  is  the  design  of  this  history  to  trace  the  progress 
and  development  of  the  British  Constitution,  during  a 
period  of  one  hundred  years  ; and  to  illustrate  every 
material  change,  — whether  of  legislation,  custom,  or 
policy,  — by  which  institutions  have  been  improved, 
and  abuses  in  the  government  corrected. 

The  accession  of  George  III.  presents  no  natural 
boundary  in  constitutional  history  : but  former  reigns 
have  already  been  embraced  in  the  able  survey  of 
Mr.  Hallam  ; and  frequent  allusions  are  here  made  to 
events  of  an  earlier  period,  connected  with  the  inqui- 
ries of  the  present  work. 

In  considering  the  history  of  our  mixed  government, 
we  are  led  to  study  each  institution  separately,  to  mark 
its  changes,  and  observe  its  relations  to  other  powers 
and  influences  in  the  State.  With  this  view,  I have 
found  it  necessary  to  deviate  from  a strictly  chrono- 
logical narrative,  and  to  adopt  a natural  division  of 
leading  subjects.  If  this  arrangement  should  appear 
occasionally  to  involve  an  incomplete  view  of  particu- 
lar events,  and  repeated  references  to  the  same  period, 
under  different  aspects ; I trust  it  will  be  found,  on  the 
whole,  the  most  convenient  and  instructive.  The  form 
of  the  work  is  not  the  less  historical.  Each  inquiry 
is  pursued  throughout  the  entire  century  ; but  is 


VI 


PREFACE. 


separated  from  contemporary  incidents,  which  more 
properly  fall  under  other  divisions. 

The  present  volume  embraces  a history  of  the  pre- 
rogatives, influence,  and  revenues  of  the  Crown  ; and 
of  the  constitution,  powers,  functions,  and  political 
relations  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament.  The  second 
volume  will  comprise,  — among  other  constitutional 
subjects,  — a history  of  party:  of  the  press,  and  polit- 
ical agitation  : of  the  Church,  and  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious liberty.  It  will  conclude  with  a general  review 
of  our  legislation,  — its  policy  and  results,  — during 
the  same  period. 

Continually  touching  upon  controverted  topics,  I 
have  endeavored  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  the  spirit 
and  tone  of  controversy.  But,  impressed  with  an 
earnest  conviction  that  the  development  of  popular 
liberties  has  been  safe  and  beneficial,  I do  not  affect 
to  disguise  the  interest  with  which  I have  traced  it, 
through  all  the  events  of  history.  Had  I viewed  it 
with  distrust,  and  despondency,  this  work  would  not 
have  been  written. 

The  policy  of  our  laws,  as  determined  by  successive 
Parliaments,  is  so  far  accepted  by  statesmen  of  all 
parties,  and  by  most  unprejudiced  thinkers,  of  the 
present  generation,  that  I am  at  liberty  to  discuss  it 
historically,  without  entering  upon  the  field  of  party 
politics.  Not  dealing  with  the  conduct  and  motives 
of  public  men,  I have  been  under  no  restraint  in 
adverting  to  recent  measures,  in  order  to  complete 
the  annals  of  a century  of  legislation. 


London:  January  12 th,  1861. 


CONTENTS 


OF 

THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 


’ CHAPTER  I. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN  DURING  THE  REIGN  OF  GEORGE  III. 

PAGE 

Influence  of  the  Crown  since  the  Revolution 15 

Its  sources 16 

Restrictions  on  the  personal  influence  of  the  sovereign  ...  19 

Ministerial  power  and  responsibility ib. 

Power  of  ministers  regarded  with  jealousy  by  George  III.  . . 21 

His  determination  to  exalt  the  kingly  office 23 

His  secret  counsellors 24 

His  policy  and  its  dangers 26 

He  enforces  it  against  his  ministers 29 

Lord  Bute  as  premier  carries  out  the  king's  policy  . . • . 31 

Their  efforts  to  coerce  the  Opposition 32 

Lord  Bute  resigns 34 

Mr.  Grenville  cooperates  in  the  king's  unconstitutional  policy  . 36 

The  king's  differences  with  the  Grenville  ministry  ....  38 

His  reluctant  admission  of  the  Rockingham  ministry  ....  41 

Exerts  his  influence  in  Parliament  against  them 43 

The  king  advances  his  policy  with  the  aid  of  Lord  Chatham  . 46 

They  unite  in  breaking  up  parties ib. 

Development  of  the  king's  policy  under  Lord  North  ....  48 

The  king  his  own  minister 52 

Protests  against  the  influence  of  the  Crown 54 

Intimidation  of  peers  in  opposition  to  the  Court 56 

Lord  North  driven  from  office  by  the  Commons 58 

Result  of  twenty  years  of  kingcraft 60 

Lord  Rockingham's  second  ministry 61 

Measures  to  restrain  the  king's  influence 62 

The  Coalition  force  their  way  into  office 63 


viii  CONTENTS  OF 

PAGE 

The  king’s  influence  employed  against  them 66 

Use  of  the  king’s  name  in  Parliament  denounced 67 

The  Coalition  dismissed 68 

Mr.  Pitt  becomes  the  king’s  minister 69 

Is  met  by  violent  opposition  in  the  Commons 70 

Motions  to  delay  the  supplies 72 

Opposition  continued 73 

Triumph  of  Mr.  Pitt 77 

Reflections  on  this  struggle 78 

General  influence  of  the  Crown  augmented 82 

The  king’s  influence  exerted  against  Mr.  Pitt 83 

His  Majesty’s  opposition  to  Catholic  emancipation 85 

Mr.  Pitt  resigns  on  that  question 87 

Influence  of  the  Crown  during  the  Addington  ministry  ...  89 

Mr.  Pitt  reinstated  in  office 90 

The  Grenville  administration 92 

The  king’s  friends  active  against  them 94 

Pledge  required  of  ministers  on  the  Catholic  question  ...  96 

Their  removal  from  office ib . 

Pledge  discussed  in  Parliament ib. 

The  king’s  appeal  to  the  people  on  the  Catholic  question  . . . 103 

His  supremacy  during  the  Perceval  ministry ib. 


CHAPTER  II. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN  DURING-  THE  REGENCY,  THE  REIGNS 
OF  GEORGE  IV.,  WILLIAM  IV.,  AND  HER  MAJESTY  QUEEN  VIC- 
TORIA. 

Influence  of  the  Court  over  the  prince  regent 105 

His  estrangement  from  the  Whigs 106 

Position  of  parties  a proof  of  the  paramount  influence  of  the 

Crown 108 

Negotiations  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Perceval 109 

Ascendency  of  Tory  politics  under  Lord  Liverpool 112 

Proceedings  against  Queen  Caroline 113 

The  bill  of  pains  and  penalties  withdrawn 115 

Mr.  Brougham’s  motion  on  the  influence  of  the  Crown  . . . 117 

George  IV. ’s  opposition  to  Catholic  emancipation 118 

Parliamentary  reform  favored  by  William  I V 120 

His  support  of  Earl  Grey’s  ministry 122 

He  prevails  upon  the  Lords  to  pass  the  Reform  Bill  ....  123 


THE  FIRST  VOLUME.  ix 

PAGE 

Sudden  dismissal  of  the  Melbourne  ministry 125 

Sir  R.  Peel  called  to  office  while  abroad 128 

Is  driven  from  office ..  . . .130 

Diminution  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown  shown  by  these 

events ib. 

Lord  Melbourne  in  office  on  her  Majesty's  accession  ....  131 

The  “ bedchamber  question  '' ib. 

Sir  R.  Peel's  second  administration 134 

Relations  of  ministers  to  the  sovereign 135 

Lord  Palmerston's  removal  from  office 136 

Increased  influence  of  the  Crown  now  under  due  control  . . 138 

Continued  influence  of  great  families 139 

CHAPTER  III. 

PREROGATIVES  OP  THE  CROWN  DURING  THE  MINORITY  OR  INCA- 
PACITY OF  THE  SOVEREIGN. 

Incapacity  of  a sovereign  not  recognized  by  law 141 

George  III.'s  first  regency  scheme,  1765  142 

Doubts  concerning  the  term  “ royal  family  " 145 

Attempted  exclusion  of  Princess  of  Wales  from  the  regency  . ib. 
Meeting  of  Parliament  during  the  king's  second  illness,  1788-9  148 

The  rights  of  a regent  debated 149 

Regent  to  be  appointed  by  bill  founded  on  resolutions  . . . 151 

Great  seal  to  be  used  under  authority  of  Parliament  . . . .152 

A new  speaker  during  the  king's  incapacity 153 

The  commission  to  open  Parliament 155 

The  regency  bill  stayed  by  the  king's  recovery 158 

These  proceedings  considered 159 

Ministerial  embarrassments  caused  by  the  king's  third  illness, 

1801 163 

The  king's  fourth  illness,  1804  . 166 

Questions  raised  as  to  his  capacity  for  business 167 

Meeting  of  Parliament  during  his  last  illness,  1810 172 

The  precedents  of  1788  followed 173 

The  issue  of  money  authorized  by  Parliament 178 

Act  authorizing  George  IV.  to  sign  by  a stamp 179 

Rights  of  an  infant  king  considered  on  the  accession  of  Wil- 
liam IY 182 

The  Regency  Act,  1830-31  183 

The  rights  of  a king's  posthumous  child 184 

The  Regency  Acts  of  Queen  Victoria 185 


X 


CONTENTS  OF 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN  : THE  CIVIL  LIST  I PENSIONS  : PREROG- 
ATIVES OF  THE  CROWN  IN  RELATION  TO  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY. 

PAGE 

Possessions  of  the  Crown  in  early  times 186 

Alienations  of  Crown  lands  restrained 189 

The  Civil  List  from  William  and  Mary  to  George  III 191 

Settlement  of  the  Civil  List  on  the  accession  of  George  III.  . 193 

Charges  and  debts  upon  the  Civil  List 194 

Schemes  for  economic  reform 197 

The  Civil  List  Act,  1782  199 

Civil  Lists  since  the  regency 201 

Duchies  of  Lancaster  and  Cornwall 204 

Private  property  of  sovereigns 205 

Provision  for  the  royal  family ib . 

Debts  of  the  Prince  of  Wales ib. 

Management  of  the  land  revenues  on  behalf  of  the  public  . . 207 

Pensions  on  the  Civil  List  and  other  Crown  revenues  . . . 210 

Restrictions  on  the  grant  of  pensions 212 

Pinal  regulation  of  the  Pension  List 214 

Powers  of  the  sovereign  over  grandchildren 216 

The  Royal  Marriage  Act,  1772  217 

Guardianship  of  Princess  Charlotte 222 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS,  AND  THE  PEERAGE. 

Progressive  increase  of  the  peerage  prior  to  reign  of  George  III.  224 
Change  in  the  character  of  the  House  by  increase  of  numbers  . ib. 

Profuse  creations  in  the  reign  of  George  III 226 

The  peerage  of  Ireland 228 

Present  state  of  the  peerage 229 

Representative  character  of  the  House  of  Lords 232 

Rights  of  Scottish  peers 233 

Gradual  fusion  of  the  peerages  of  the  three  kingdoms  . . . 235 
Hereditary  descent  the  characteristic  of  the  peerage  ....  236 

Life  peerages 237 

The  lords  spiritual 242 

Attempts  to  exclude  them  from  the  House  of  Lords  ....  244 

Increased  number  of  the  House  of  Lords,  a source  of  strength  . 246 
Political  parties  in  the  House 247 


THE  FIRST  VOLUME.  xi 

PAGE 

Collisions  between  the  two  Houses  averted  by  the  influence  of 

the  Crown 248 

Position  of  the  Lords  in  reference  to  the  Reform  Bills  . . . 249 

Proposed  creation  of  peers 252 

A creation  of  peers  equivalent  to  a dissolution 254 

The  independence  of  the  Lords  unimpaired  by  the  reform 

crisis 255 

Their  vantage  ground 257 

Circumstances  affecting  their  political  weight 258 

The  peerage  in  its  social  relations 259 

The  baronetage  and  orders  of  knighthood 260 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  HOUSE  OE  COMMONS. 

Anomalies  of  representation  prior  to  reform 263 

Defects  in  the  electoral  system 264 

Nomination  boroughs 265 

Various  and  limited  rights  of  election 266 

Bribery  at  elections 267 

Sale  of  boroughs 270 

Attempts  to  restrain  corruption 274 

Act  to  prevent  the  sale  of  seats 277 

Government  boroughs ib. 

Revenue  officers  disfranchised .278 

Vexatious  contests  in  populous  cities 279 

Territorial  influence  in  counties 282 

Defective  representation  of  Scotland 283 

And  of  Ireland 287  */ 

Nominee  members,  the  majority  of  the  House 288 

Injustice  in  the  trial  of  election  petitions . 289 

The  Grenville  Act 291 

Improved  constitution  of  election  committees 293 

Bribery  of  members  by  places  and  pensions . 294 

Measures  to  restrain  it ib. 

Places  in  the  reign  of  George  III 296 

Judicial  officers  disqualified 298 

Pecuniary  bribes  to  members 299 

During  the  reign  of  George  III.  301 

Members  bribed  by  shares  in  loans  and  lotteries 304 

By  lucrative  contracts 308. 


Xll 


CONTENTS  OF 


PAGE 

Various  sources  of  corruption  condemned  by  Parliament  . . . 309 

State  of  society  favorable  to  these  practices 310 

How  popular  principles  were  kept  alive ib. 

The  first  schemes  of  parliamentary  reform 312 

Mr.  Pitt’s  motions  for  reform 315 

Reform  advocated  by  Mr.  Grey 319 

Discouraged  by  the  French  Revolution 320 

Reform  motions  at  the  beginning  of  this  century 321 

Lord  J.  Russell’s  efforts  for  reform 323 

Catholic  emancipation  a plea  for  reform 326 

Gross  cases  of  bribery  at  elections,  1826-27  327 

Reform  motions  in  1830  329 

Puke  of  Wellington’s  declaration 331 

Reform  ministry 333 

First  reform  bill  in  the  Commons 334 

The  second  rejected  by  the  Lords 336 

Passing  of  the  third  reform  bill ib. 

Reform  Act  considered 338 

Reform  Acts  of  Scotland  and  Ireland 340 

Political  results  of  the  Reform  Act 341 

Bribery  since  the  Reform  Act ib. 

Disfranchisement  and  other  Acts  to  restrain  bribery  ....  343 

Policy  of  legislation  concerning  bribery 348 

Efforts  to  shorten  the  duration  of  Parliaments ib. 

Motions  in  favor  of  vote  by  ballot  . 352 

Qualification  Acts  repealed . 354 

Proceedings  at  elections  improved 355 

Later  measures  of  reform 356 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RELATIONS  OF  PARLIAMENT  TO  THE  CROWN,  THE  LAW,  AND  THE 
PEOPLE. 

Proceedings  of  the  Commons  against  Wilkes 365 

And  of  the  Lords 368 

Wilkes  returned  for  Middlesex 370 

His  two  years’  imprisonment ib. 

His  expulsion  for  libel  on  Lord  Weymouth 371 

His  reelections,  and  final  exclusion 374 

Lord  Chatham’s  efforts  to  reverse  the  proceedings  against 

Wilkes . 876 


THE  FIRST  VOLUME.  xiii 

PAGE 

Similar  proceedings  in  the  Commons  ...........  377 

City  address  to  the  king  on  Wilkes's  expulsion 379 

Motions  in  the  Lords  to  reverse  the  proceedings  against  Wilkes  . 382 

Resolutions  against  him  expunged 383 

Exclusion  of  strangers  from  parliamentary  debates  ......  384 

Members  of  the  Commons  excluded  from  the  Lords  ....  388 

Consequent  misunderstanding  between  the  two  Houses  . . . ib. 

Publication  of  parliamentary  debates  .........  390 

Commencement  of  the  system  391 

Misrepresentations  of  reporters  392 

Their  personalities . . ..  ..  . . 393 

Contest  between  the  Commons  and  the  printers  .....  395 

Wilkes  and  the  Lord  Mayor  interpose  in  their  behalf  ....  396 
The  Commons  proceed  against  the  city  magistrates  ....  397 

Reports  of  debates  permitted 402 

Progress  of  the  system ib. 

Political  results  of  reporting 404 

Presence  of  strangers  recognized 406 

Publication  of  division  lists ib. 

Publication  of  parliamentary  papers 408 

Freedom  of  comments  upon  Parliament 409 

Early  petitions,  and  rights  of  petitioners 410 

Commencement  of  modern  system  of  petitioning 412 

Petitioning  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  ....  414 

Abuses  of  petitioning 416 

Debates  on  presenting  petitions  restrained 417 

Pledges  of  members  to  candidates  considered ib. 

Surrender  of  certain  parliamentary  privileges 420 

Conflict  of  privilege  and  law 421 

Sir  F.  Burdett's  case 422 

The  Stockdale  cases 424 

Right  of  Parliament  to  publish  papers  affecting  character  . . 426 

Moderation  of  the  Commons  in  forwarding  the  admission  of  Jews 

to  Parliament 428 

Control  of  Parliament  over  the  executive  government  . . . 429 

Over  questions  of  peace  and  war 430 

Advice  of  Parliament  concerning  a dissolution 431 

Popular  addresses  on  the  same  subject 432 

Relations  between  the  Commons  and  the  ministers  of  the  Crown  434 

Votes  expressing  confidence  or  otherwise ib. 

Impeachments 435 

Improved  relations  of  the  Crown  with  the  Commons  ....  437 
Stability  of  governments,  before  and  since  reform,  considered  . ib. 


xiv  CONTENTS  OF  THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 

PAGE 

Control  of  the  Commons  over  supply  and  taxes 440 

Demands  of  the  Crown  agreed  to,  without  exception,  since  the 

Revolution 441 

Cases  of  delaying  the  supplies 442 

Exclusive  rights  of  the  Commons  over  taxation 444 

Power  of  the  Lords  to  reject  a money  hill  considered  ....  445 

Rejection  of  the  paper  duties  bill,  1860  447 

Sketch  of  parliamentary  oratory 450 

Orators  of  the  age  of  Chatham  and  Pitt 451 

Orators  at  the  commencement  of  this  century 455 

Characteristics  of  modern  oratory 459 

Coarse  personalities  of  former  times 460 

General  standard  of  modern  debate 463 


THE  ACCESSION  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Growth  of  the  Influence  of  the  Crown : — Its  Sources : — Restrictions  on 
the  Personal  Influence  of  the  Sovereign : — Ministerial  Responsibility : 

— Accession  of  George  III. : — His  Resolution  to  Exercise  a larger  Share 
of  Personal  Influence  in  the  Government : — His  Policy,  and  its  Effects : 

— His  Relations  with  successive  Ministers  during  his  Reign. 

The  growth  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  at  a period 
in  the  history  of  this  country  when  government  Growth  of  the 

. , ° influence  of 

by  prerogative  had  recently  been  subverted,  and  the  Crown, 
popular  rights  and  liberties  enlarged,  attests  the  vital  power 
of  the  Monarchy.  At  the  Revolution,  the  arbitrary  rule 
of  the  Stuart  kings  finally  gave  way  to  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment, with  ministerial  responsibility.  Such  a change 
portended  the  subjection  of  future  kings  to  the  will  of  Par- 
liament; but  it  proved  no  more  than  a security  for  the 
observance  of  the  law.  While  the  exercise  of  the  royal 
authority  was  restrained  within  the  proper  limits  of  the 
constitution,  the  Crown  was  shorn  of  none  of  its  ancient  pre- 
rogatives ; but  remained,  as  it  had  ever  been,  the  source  of 
all  power,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  — “ the  fountain  of  honor,” 
— the  first  and  paramount  institution  of  the  state.  Its 
powers,  indeed,  were  now  exercised  by  ministers  responsi- 
ble to  Parliament ; and  the  House  of  Commons  was  no 


16 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


longer  held  in  awe  by  royal  prerogative.  Yet  so  great 
were  the  attributes  of  royalty,  and  so  numerous  its  sources 
of  influence,  that,  for  more  than  a century  after  the  Revo- 
lution, it  prevailed  over  the  more  popular  elements  of  the 
constitution.  A Parliament  representing  the  people  little 
more  than  in  name,  and  free,  in  great  measure,  from  the 
restraint  of  public  opinion,  — which  had  not  yet  the  means 
of  being  intelligently  formed,  or  adequately  expressed, — 
promoted  the  views  of  rival  parties,  rather  than  the  interests 
of  the  people.  This  popular  institution,  designed  to  control 
the  Crown,  was  won  over  to  its  side,  and  shared,  while  it 
supported,  its  ascendency.  The  Crown  now  governed  with 
more  difficulty,  and  was  forced  to  use  all  its  resources,  for 
the  maintenance  of  its  authority : but  it  governed  as  com- 
pletely as  ever. 

Meanwhile  every  accession  to  the  greatness  of  the  coun- 
try favored  the  influence  of  the  Crown.  By  the  increase 
of  establishments  and  public  expenditure,  the  means  of  pat- 
ronage were  multiplied.  As  the  people  grew  more  wealthy, 
considerable  classes  appeared  in  society,  whose  sympathies 
were  with  “ the  powers  that  be,”  and  who  coveted  favors 
which  the  Crown  alone  could  bestow.  And  thus,  the  very 
causes  which  ultimately  extended  the  power  of  the  people, 
for  a long  time  served  to  enlarge  the  influence  of  the 
Crown. 

Vast  and  various  were  the  sources  of  this  influence.  The 
its  sources.  Crown  bestowed  everything  which  its  subjects 
most  desired  to  obtain ; honors,  dignities,  places,  and  prefer- 
ments. Such  a power  reached  all  classes,  and  swayed  con- 
stituents, as  well  as  parliaments.  The  House  of  Lords  has 
ever  been  more  closely  associated  with  the  Crown  and  its 
interests,  than  the  House  of  Commons.  The  nobles  of  every 
land  are  the  support  and  ornament  of  the  court ; and  in 
England  they  are  recognized  as  an  outwork  of  the  mon- 
archy, — a defence  against  the  democratic  elements  of  our 
institutions.  The  entire  body  is  the  creation  of  the  Crown. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


17 


The  temporal  peers,  or  their  ancestors,  have  all  been  enno- 
bled by  royal  favor ; many  have  been  raised  to  a higher 
dignity  in  the  peerage ; and  others  aspire  to  such  an  eleva- 
tion. A peerage  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  an  object  of  am- 
bition to  the  Scotch  and  Irish  Peers.  The  Spiritual  Lords 
owe  their  dignity  to  the  Crown,  and  look  up  to  the  same 
source  of  power,  for  translation  to  more  important  sees. 
Nearly  all  the  highest  honors  and  offices  are  engrossed  by 
the  nobility.  The  most  powerful  duke,  who  has  already  en- 
joyed every  other  honor,  still  aspires  to  the  Order  of  the 
Garter.  The  lord-lieutenancy  of  a county,  — an  office  of 
feudal  grandeur,  — confers  distinction  and  influence,  of 
which  the  noblest  are  justly  proud.1  Other  great  appoint- 
ments in  the  state  and  royal  household  are  enjoyed  exclu- 
sively by  peers  and  their  families  ; while  a large  proportion 
of  the  state  patronage  is  dispensed  by  their  hands.  Their 
rank  also  brings  them  within  the  immediate  reach  of  court 
favor  and  social  courtesies,  by  which  the  most  eminent  peers 
naturally  become  the  personal  friends  of  the  reigning  sov- 
ereign. Accordingly,  with  some  rare  exceptions,  the  House 
of  Lords  has  always  ranged  itself  on  the  side  of  the  Crown. 
It  has  supported  the  king  himself  against  his  own  ministers : 
it  has  yielded  up  its  convictions  at  his  word ; and  where,  by 
reason  of  party  connections,  it  has  been  opposed  to  a min- 
istry enjoying  the  confidence  of  the  Crown,  its  opposition  has 
been  feeble  or  compliant.2  Nor  has  its  general  support  of 
the  throne  been  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  the  constitu- 
tion. The  Commons,  on  the  other  hand,  representing  the 
people,  are  assumed  to  be  independent  of  the  Crown,  and 
jealous  of  its  influence.  How  far  these  have  been  their 
actual  characteristics,  will  be  examined  hereafter : 3 but  here 
it  may  be  briefly  said,  that  until  the  reform  in  the  represen- 

1 Though  the  office  of  Lord-Lieutenant  does  not  date  earlier  than  the 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  it  resembles  the  ancient  dignity  of  “Comes.” 

2 See  Chap.  V.,  Peers  and  Peerage. 

3 See  Chap.  YI.  (House  of  Commons.) 

VOL.  I.  2 


18 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


tation  of  the  people  in  1882,  the  counties  were  mainly  under 
the  influence  of  great  and  noble  families  (as  they  still  are,  to 
a considerable  extent) : a large  proportion  of  the  boroughs 
were  either  the  absolute  property  of  peers  and  their  con- 
nections, or  entirely  under  their  control ; while  in  many  other 
boroughs  the  interest  of  the  government  was  paramount  at 
elections.  The  cities  and  large  towns  alone  had  any  preten- 
sions to  independence.  Except  on  rare  occasions,  when  all 
classes  were  animated  by  a strong  public  opinion,  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  people  and  popular  interests  was  a con- 
stitutional theory,  rather  than  an  active  political  force.  Had 
there  been  no  party  distinctions,  there  could  scarcely  have 
been  an  ostensible  opposition  to  any  ministers,  whom  the 
king  might  have  chosen  to  appoint.  Members  of  Parliament 
sought  eagerly  the  patronage  of  the  Crown.  Services  at 
elections,  and  support  in  Parliament,  were  rewarded  with 
peerages,  baronetcies,  offices  and  pensions.  Such  rewards 
were  openly  given : the  consideration  was  avowed.  There 
were  other  secret  rewards  of  a grosser  character,  which 
need  not  here  be  noticed.1  N or  were  constituents  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  same  influence.  The  collection  and  expen- 
diture of  an  enormous  and  continually  increasing  public  rev- 
enue provided  inferior'  places,  — almost  without  number,  — 
which  were  dispensed  on  the  recommendation  of  members 
supporting  the  government.  Hence  to  vote  with  the  min- 
isters of  the  day  was  the  sure  road  to  advancement : to  vote 
against  them,  was  certain  neglect  and  proscription. 

To  these  sources  of  influence  must  be  added  the  loyalty 
Loyalty  of  the  °f  the  British  people.  He  must  indeed  be  a bad 
people.  king,  whom  the  people  do  not  love.  Equally 
remarkable  are  their  steady  obedience  to  the  law,  and  re- 
spect for  authority.  Their  sympathies  are  generally  on  the 
side  of  the  government.  In  a good  cause  their  active  sup- 
port may  be  relied  upon ; and  even  in  a bad  cause,  their 
prejudices  have  more  often  been  enlisted  in  favor  of  the  gov- 
i See  Chap.  VI. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


19 


eminent,  than  against  it.  How  great  then,  for  good  or  for 
evil,  were  fhe  powers  of  a British  sovereign  and  his  min- 
isters. The  destinies  of  a great  people  depended  upon  their 
wisdom,  nearly  as  much  as  if  they  had  wielded  arbitrary 
power. 

But  while  these  various  sources  of  influence  continued  to 
maintain  the  political  ascendency  of  the  Crown, 

A Restrictions 

the  personal  share  of  the  sovereign  m the  gov-  on  the  perso- 

, ‘Tii  nal  influence 

ernment  ot  the  country  was  considerably  re-  of  the  sover- 
stricted.  William  III.,  the  most  able  statesman  eign‘ 
of  his  day,  though  representing  the  principles  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, was  yet  his  own  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  conducted 
negotiations  abroad,  and  commanded  armies  in  the  field. 
But  henceforward  a succession  of  sovereigns  less  capable 
than  William,  and  of  ministers  gifted  with  extraordinary 
ability  and  force  of  character,  rapidly  reduced  to  practice 
the  theory  of  ministerial  responsibility. 

The  government  of  the  state  was  conducted,  throughout 
all  its  departments,  by  ministers  responsible  to  Ministerial  re 
Parliament  for  every  act  of  their  administration,  sP°n8lblllty* 
— without  whose  advice  no  act  could  be  done,  — who  could 
be  dismissed  for  incapacity  or  failure,  and  impeached  for 
political  crimes ; and  who  resigned  when  their  advice  was 
disregarded  by  the  Crown,  or  their  policy  disapproved  by 
Parliament.  With  ministers  thus  responsible,  “ the  king 
could  do  no  wrong.”  The  Stuarts  had  strained  prerogative 
so  far,  that  it  had  twice  snapped  asunder  in  their  hands. 
They  had  exercised  it  personally,  and  were  held  personally 
responsible  for  its  exercise.  One  had  paid  the  penalty  with 
his  head : another  with  his  crown ; and  their  family  had 
been  proscribed  forever.  But  now,  if  the  prerogative  was 
strained,  the  ministers  were  condemned,  and  not  the  king. 
If  the  people  cried  out  against  the  government,  — instead  of 
a revolution,  there  was  merely  a change  of  ministry.  In- 
stead of  dangerous  conflicts  between  the  Crown  and  the  Par- 
liament, there  succeeded  struggles  between  rival  parties  for 


20 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


parliamentary  majorities;  and  the  successful  party  wielded 
all  the  power  of  the  state.  Upon  ministers,  therefore,  de- 
volved the  entire  burden  of  public  affairs : they  relieved  the 
Crown  of  its  cares  and  perils,  but,  at  the  same  time,  they 
appropriated  nearly  all  its  authority.  The  king  reigned,  but 
his  ministers  governed. 

To  an  ambitious  prince,  this  natural  result  of  constitutional 
Kings  of  the  government  could  not  fail  to  be  distasteful ; but 

House  of  Han-  n 1 „ . .. 

over.  the  rule  of  the  House  of  Hanover  had  hitherto 

been  peculiarly  favorable  to  its  development.  With  George 
I.  and  George  II.,  Hanoverian  politics  had  occupied  the  first 
place  in  their  thoughts  and  affections.  Of  English  politics, 
English  society,  and  even  the  English  language,  they  knew 
little.  The  troublesome  energies  of  Parliament  were  an 
enigma  to  them ; and  they  cheerfully  acquiesced  in  the  as- 
cendency of  able  ministers  who  had  suppressed  rebellions, 
and  crushed  pretenders  to  their  crown,  — who  had  triumphed 
over  parliamentary  opposition,  and  had  borne  all  the  burden 
of  the  government.  Left  to  the  indulgence  of  their  own 
personal  tastes,  — occupied  by  frequent  visits  to  the  land  of 
their  birth,  — by  a German  court,  favorites  and  mistresses, 
— they  were  not  anxious  to  engage,  more  than  was  neces- 
sary, in  the  turbulent  contests  of  a constitutional  government. 
Having  lent  their  name  and  authority  to  competent  ministers, 
they  acted  upon  their  advice,  and  aided  them  by  all  the 
means  at  the  disposal  of  the  court. 

This  authority  had  fallen  to  the  lot  of  ministers  connected 

Ascendency  with  the  Whig  party,  to  whom  the  House  of 
of  the  Whig  TT  r™ 

party.  Hanover  mainly  owed  its  throne.  I lie  most 
eminent  of  the  Tories  had  been  tainted  with  Jacobite  prin- 
ciples and  connections ; and  some  of  them  had  even  plotted 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts.  From  their  ranks  the 
Pretender  had  twice  drawn  the  main  body  of  his  adherents. 
The  Whigs,  indeed,  could  not  lay  claim  to  exclusive  loyalty  : 
nor  were  the  Tories  generally  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of 
disaffection  ; but  the  Whigs  having  acquired  a superior  title 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


21 


to  the  favors  of  the  court,  and  being  once  admitted  to  office, 
contrived,  — by  union  amongst  themselves,  by  borough  in- 
terests, and  by  their  monopoly  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown, 
— to  secure  an  ascendency  in  Parliament  which,  for  nearly 
fifty  years,  was  almost  unassailable.  Until  the  fall  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole  the  Whigs  had  been  compact  and  united ; 
and  their  policy  had  generally  been  to  carry  out,  in  practice, 
the  principles  of  the  Revolution.  When  no  longer  under  the 
guidance  of  that  minister,  their  coherence,  as  a party,  was 
disturbed  ; and  they  became  divided  into  families  and  cliques. 
To  use  the  words  of  Lord  John  Russell,  this  “ was  the  age 
of  small  factions.”  1 The  distinctive  policy  of  the  party  was 
lost  in  the  personal  objects  of  its  leaders ; but  political  power 
still  remained  in  the  same  hands ; and,  by  alliances  rather 
than  by  union,  the  “ great  Whig  families,”  and  others  ad- 
mitted to  a share  of  their  power,  continued  to  engross  all  the 
high  offices  of  state,  and  to  distribute  among  their  personal 
adherents  the  entire  patronage  of  the  Crown. 

The  young  king,  George  III.,  on  succeeding  to  the  throne, 
regarded  with  settled  jealousy  the  power  of  his  A . 

y ° J 1 ' Accession  of 

ministers,  as  an  encroachment  on  his  own,  and  George  hi. 
resolved  to  break  it  down.  His  personal  popu-  of  his  minis- 

1 A A ters 

larity  wTas  such  as  to  facilitate  the  execution  of 
this  design.  Well  knowing  that  the  foreign  extraction  of  his 
predecessors  had  repressed  the  affections  of  their  people,  he 
added,  with  his  own  hand,  to  the  draft  of  his  firs!  speech  to 
Parliament,  the  winning  phrase,  “ Born  and  educated  in  this 
country,  I glory  in  the  name  of  Briton.” 2 The  Stuarts  were 
now  the  aliens,  and  not  the  Hanoverian  king.  A new  reign, 
also,  was  favorable  to  the  healing  of  political  differences,  and 
to  the  fusion  of  parties.  In  Scotland,  a few  fanatical  non- 
jurors may  still  have  grudged  their  allegiance  to  an  uncove- 
nanted king.  But  none  of  the  young  king’s  subjects  had 

1 Introduction  to  vol.  iii.  of  Bedford  Correspondence. 

2 The  king  himself  bore  testimony  to  this  fact  upwards  of  forty  years 
afterwards.  — Rose's  Correspondence , ii.  189  (Diary). 


22 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


plotted  against  his  throne ; and  few  could  be  suspected  of 
adherence  to  the  fallen  cause  of  the  Stuarts,  which  had  been 
hopelessly  abandoned  since  the  rebellion  of  1745.  The 
close  phalanx  of  the  Whig  party  had  already  been  broken ; 
and  Mr.  Pitt  had  striven  to  conciliate  the  Tories,  and  put  an 
end  to  the  bitter  feuds  by  which  the  kingdom  had  been  dis- 
tracted. No  party  was  now  in  disgrace  at  court ; but  Whigs, 
Tories,  and  Jacobites  thronged  to  St.  James’s,  and  vied  with 
each  other  in  demonstrations  of  loyalty  and  devotion.1 

The  king  was  naturally  ambitious,  and  fond  of  the  active 
The  king’s  ed-  exercise  of  power  ; and  his  education,  if  otherwise 
ucation.  neglected,2  had  raised  his  estimate  of  the  personal 
rights  of  a king,  in  the  government  of  his  country.  So  far 
back  as  1752,  complaints  had  been  made  that  the  prince  was 
surrounded  by  Jacobite  preceptors,  who  were  training  him 
in  arbitrary  principles  of  government.3  At  that  time  these 
complaints  were  discredited  as  factious  calumnies  ; but  the 
political  views  of  the  king,  on  his  accession  to  the  throne, 
appear  to  confirm  the  suspicions  entertained  concerning  his 
early  education. 

His  mother,  the  Princess  Dowager  of  Wales,  — herself 
ambitious  and  fond  of  power,4  — had  derived  her  views  of 
the  rights  and  authority  of  a sovereign  from  German  courts ; 
and  encouraged  the  prince’s  natural  propensities  by  the  sig- 
nificant advice  of  “ George,  be  king.” 5 6 Lord  Waldegrave, 

1 “ The  Earl  of  Lichfield,  Sir  Walter  Bagot,  and  the  principal  Jacobites, 
went  to  Court,  which  George  Selwyn,  a celebrated  wit,  accounted  for  from 
the  number  of  Stuarts  that  were  now  at  St.  James’s.” — Walpole's  Mem., 
i.  14. 

2 Dodington’s  Diary,  171.  The  Princess  of  Wales  said:  “His  book- 
learning she  was  no  judge  of,  though  she  supposed  it  small  or  useless.”  — 
Ibid.,  357;  Wraxall’s  Mem.,  ii.  39. 

8 See  debate  in  House  of  Lords,  22d  March,  1753;  Walpole’s  Mem.,  iv. 
139 ; Dodington’s  Diary,  190,  194,  197,  228. 

4 Walpole  says,  “ The  princess,  whose  ambition  yielded  to  none.”  — 

Mem.,  i.  12.  “ The  princess  was  ardently  fond  of  power,  and  all  its  appa- 
nages of  observance.”  — Adolph.  Hist.,  i.  12. 

6 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  3. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


23 


who  had  been  for  some  time  governor  to  the  prince,  describes 
him  as  “ full  of  princely  prejudices  contracted  in  the  nursery, 
and  improved  by  the  society  of  bedchamber-women  and 
pages  of  the  back-stairs.” 1 

His  groom  of  the  stole,  Lord  Bute,  — afterwards  so  no- 
torious as  his  minister,  — had  also  given  the  young  prince 
instruction  in  the  theory  of  the  British  Constitution  ; and 
knowing  little  more  than  the  princess  herself,  of  the  English 
people  and  government,  had  taught  him  that  his  own  honor, 
and  the  interests  of  the  country  required  the  extension  of  his 
personal  influence,  and  a more  active  exercise  of  his  prerog- 
atives. The  chief  obstacle  to  this  new  policy  of  the  court 
was  found  in  the  established  authority  of  responsible  minis- 
ters, upheld  by  party  connections  and  parliamentary  interest. 
Accordingly,  the  first  object  of  the  king  and  his  advisers  was 
to  loosen  the  ties  of  party,  and  break  down  the  confederacy 
of  the  great  Whig  families.2  The  king  desired  to  His  determi- 

° . ...  nation  to  gov- 

undertake  personally  the  chief  administration  of  era. 
public  affairs,  to  direct  the  policy  of  his  ministers,  and  him- 
self to  distribute  the  patronage  of  the  Crown.  He  was  am- 
bitious not  only  to  reign,  but  to  govern.  His  will  was  strong 
and  resolute,  his  courage  high,  and  his  talent  for  intrigue 
considerable.  He  came  to  the  throne  determined  to  exalt 
the  kingly  office ; and  throughout  his  long  reign,  he  never 
lost  sight  of  that  object. 

Lord  Bolingbroke  had  conceived  the  idea  of  a govern- 
ment under  “a  patriot  king,”  3 — who  should  “ gov-  i^rd  Boimg- 
ern  as  soon  as  he  begins  to  reign,”  • — who  should  ry. 

“ call  into  the  administration  such  men  as  he  can  assure  him- 
self will  serve  on  the  same  principles  on  which  he  intends  to 
govern,”  — • and  who  should  “ put  himself  at  the  head  of  his 
people  in  order  to  govern,  or,  more  properly,  to  subdue  all 

1 Lord  Waldegrave’s  Mem.,  9. 

2 See  letter  of  Sir  J.  Phillips  to  Mr.  Grenville,  Sept.  8th,  1763 ; Grenville 
Papers,  ii.  117 ; Burke’s  Present  Discontents,  Works,  ii.  231. 

3 The  Idea  of  a Patriot  King,  Works , iv.  274. 


24 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


parties.” 1 But  it  had  been  no  part  of  Lord  Bolingbroke’s 
conception,  that  the  patriot  king  should  suffer  his  favorites  to 
stand  between  him  and  his  “ most  able  and  faithful  coun- 
cillors.” 2 

The  ministry  whom  the  king  found  in  possession  of  power 
Ministry  at  his  accession,  had  been  formed  by  a coalition 
the  time  of  between  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  and  Mr.  Pitt. 

the  king’s  ac- 
cession. The  former  had  long  been  the  acknowledged  leader 

of  the  great  Whig  connection,  and  enjoyed  extended  parlia- 
mentary interest:  the  latter,  by  his  eloquence  and  states- 
manship, had  become  the  most  popular  and  powerful  of  the 
king’s  subjects.  The  ministry  also  comprised  the  Grenville 
and  Bedford  sections  of  the  Whig  party.  It  was  so  strong 
in  Parliament,  that  for  some  years  the  voice  of  opposition 
had  been  scarcely  heard ; and  so  long  as  it  continued  united, 
its  position  was  impregnable. 

But,  strong  as  were  the  ministers,  the  king  was  resolved 

cret  ^counsel" to  wrest  Power  from  their  hands,  and  to  exer- 
lors.  cise  it  himself.  For  this  purpose  he  called  to  his 

aid  the  Earl  of  Bute,  and  other  secret  counsellors,  drawn 
from  all  parties.  The  greater  number  were  of  the  Tory 
party,  whose  views  of  prerogative  were  Jacobite.  Accord- 
ing to  Horace  Walpole,  “ they  abjured  their  ancient  master  ; 
but  retained  their  principles.”  3 It  was  the  king’s  object  not 
merely  to  supplant  one  party,  and  establish  another  in  its 
place  ; but  to  create  a new  party,  faithful  to  himself,  regard- 
ing his  personal  wishes,  carrying  out  his  policy,  and  depend- 
ent on  his  will.  This  party  was  soon  distinguished  as  “ the 
king’s  men,”  or  “ the  king’s  friends.”  4 Instead  of  relying 
upon  the  advice  of  his  responsible  ministers,  the  king  took 
counsel  with  this  “ double  ” or  “ interior  cabinet.”  Even  his 
first  speech  to  Parliament  was  not  submitted  to  the  cabinet. 

1 The  Idea  of  a Patriot  King,  Woi'ks,  iv.  281,  282. 

2 Ibid.,  330. 

8 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  15. 

4 Burke’s  Present  Discontents,  Works,  ii.  210-242. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


25 


It  had.  been  drawn  up  by  himself  and  Lord  Bute  ; and  when 
Mr.  Pitt  took  exception  to  some  of  its  expressions,  the  king 
long  resisted  the  advice  of  his  minister.  It  had  been  usual 
for  ministers  to  rely  upon  the  support  of  the  Crown,  in  all 
their  measures.  They  now  found  themselves  thwarted  and 
opposed ; and  the  patronage,  which  they  had  regarded  as 
their  own,  they  saw  divided  by  the  king  amongst  his  new 
adherents  and  their  connections.  This  “ influence  behind 
the  throne  ” was  denounced  by  all  the  leading  statesmen  of 
that  time,  — by  Mr.  Grenville,  Lord  Chatham,  the  Marquess 
of  Rockingham,  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  and  Mr.  Burke. 
Occasionally  denied,  its  existence  was  yet  so  notorious,  and 
its  agency  so  palpable,  that  historical  writers  of  all  parties, 
though  taking  different  views  of  its  character,  have  not  failed 
to  acknowledge  it.  The  bitterness  vrith  which  it  was  assailed 
at  the  time  was  due,  in  great  measure,  to  political  jealousies, 
and  to  the  king’s  selection  of  his  friends  from  an  unpopular 
party;  but,  on  constitutional  grounds,  it  could  not  be  de- 
fended. 

A constitutional  government  insures  to  the  king  a wide 
authority,  in  all  the  councils  of  the  state.  He  constitution- 
chooses  and  dismisses  his  ministers.  * Their  res-  ji  relations  of 

the  king  to 

olutions  upon  every  important  measure  of  for-  his  ministers, 
eign  and  domestic  policy  are  submitted  to  his  approval ; and 
when  that  approval  is  withheld,  his  ministers  must  either 
abandon  their  policy,  or  resign  their  offices.  They  are  re- 
sponsible to  the  king  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  Parliament  on 
the  other ; and  while  they  retain  the  confidence  of  the  king, 
by  administering  affairs  to  his  satisfaction,  they  must  act 
upon  principles,  and  propose  measures,  which  they  can  jus- 
tify to  Parliament.  And  here  is  the  proper  limit  to  the 
king’s  influence.  As  he  governs  by  responsible  ministers, 
he  must  recognize  their  responsibilities.  They  are  not  only 
his  ministers,  but  also  the  public  servants  of  a free  country. 
But  an  influence  in  the  direction  of  public  affairs  thus  lim- 
ited, by  no  means  satisfied  the  ambition  of  the  king.  His 


26 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


courtiers  represented  that  the  king  was  inthralled  by  the 
dominant  party,  which  had  become  superior  to  the  throne 
itself,  and  that  in  order  to  recover  his  just  prerogative,  it 
His  attempts  was  necessary  to  break  up  the  combination.  But 

to  break  up  . „ _ . 

parties.  what  was  this  m effect  but  to  assert  that  the  king 
should  now  be  his  own  minister  ? that  ministers  should  be 
chosen,  not  because  they  had  the  confidence  of  Parliament 
and  the  country,  but  because  they  were  agreeable  to  himself, 
and  willing  to  carry  out  his  policy  ? — And  this  was  the 
true  object  of  the  king.  It  will  be  seen  that  when  ministers, 
not  of  his  own  choice,  were  in  office,  he  plotted  against 
them  and  overthrew  them ; and  when  he  had  succeeded  in 
establishing  his  friends  in  office,  he  enforced  upon  them  the 
adoption  of  his  own  policy. 

The  king’s  tactics  were  fraught  with  danger,  as  well  to  the 
Danger  of  the  Crown  itself,  as  to  the  constitutional  liberties  of 
king’s  tactics.  ^e  pe0ple ; but  his  personal  conduct  and  character 
have  sometimes  been  judged  with  too  much  severity.  That 
he  was  too  fond  of  power  for  a constitutional  monarch,  none 
will  now  be  found  to  deny : that  he  sometimes  resorted  to 
crafty  expedients,  unworthy  of  a king,  even  his  admirers  must 
admit.  With  a narrow  understanding,  and  obstinate  preju- 
dices, he  was  yet  patriotic  in  his  feelings,  and  labored,  ear- 
nestly and  honestly,  for  the  good  government  of  his  country. 
If  he  loved  power,  he  did  not  shrink  from  its  cares  and  toil. 
If  he  delighted  in  being  the  active  ruler  of  his  people,  he  de- 
voted himself  to  affairs  of  state,  even  more  laboriously  than 
his  ministers.  If  he  was  jealous  of  the  authority  of  the 
Crown,  he  was  not  less  jealous  of  the  honor  and  greatness 
of  his  people.  A just  recognition  of  the  personal  merits  of 
the  king  himself,  enables  us  to  judge  more  freely  of  the  con- 
stitutional tendency  and  results  of  his  policy. 

To  revert  to  a polity  under  which  kings  had  governed, 
and  ministers  had  executed  their  orders,  was  in  itself  a dan- 
gerous retrogression  in  the  principles  of  constitutional  gov- 
ernment. If  the  Crown,  and  not  its  ministers,  governed, 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


27 


how  could  the  former  do  no  wrong,  and  the  latter  he  respon- 
sible? If  ministers  were  content  to  accept  responsibility 
without  power,  the  Crown  could  not  escape  its  share  of 
blame.  Hence  the  chief  safeguard  of  the  monarchy  was 
endangered.  But  the  liberties  of  the  people  were  exposed 
to  greater  peril  than  the  Crown.  Power  proceeding  from 
the  king,  and  exercised  by  himself  in  person,  is  irreconcil- 
able with  popular  government.  It  constitutes  the  main  dis- 
tinction between  an  absolute,  and  a constitutional  monarchy. 
The  best  and  most  enlightened  of  kings,  governing  from 
above,  will  press  his  own  policy  upon  his  subjects.  Choos- 
ing his  ministers  from  considerations  personal  to  himself,  — 
directing  their  acts,  — upholding  them  as  his  own  servants, 

— resenting  attacks  upon  them  as  disrespectful  to  himself, 

— committed  to  their  measures,  and  resolved  to  enforce 
them,  — viewing  men  and  things  from  the  elevation  of  a 
court,  instead  of  sharing  the  interests  and  sympathies  of  the 
people,  — how  can  he  act  in  harmony  with  popular  in- 
fluences ? 

The  system  of  government  which  George  III.  found  in 
operation,  was  indeed  imperfect.  The  influence  of  the 
Crown,  as  exercised  by  ministers,  prevailed  over  the  more 
popular  elements  of  the  constitution.  The  great  nobles 
were  too  powerful.  A Parliament,  without  adequate  rep- 
resentation of  the  people,  and  uncontrolled  by  public  opinion, 
was  generally  subservient  to  the  ministers  : but  with  all  its 
defects,  it  was  still  a popular  institution.  If  not  freely  elect- 
ed by  the  people,  it  was  yet  composed  of  men  belonging  to 
various  classes  of  society,  and  sharing  their  interests  and 
feelings.  The  statesmen,  who  were  able  by  their  talents 
and  influence  to  command  its  confidence,  became  the  min- 
isters of  the  Crown ; and  power  thus  proceeded  from  below, 
instead  of  from  above.  The  country  was  governed  by  its 
ablest  men,  and  not  by  favorites  of  the  court.  The  proper 
authority  of  Parliament  was  recognized,  and  nothing  was 
wanting  in  the  theory  of  constitutional  government,  but  an 


28 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


improved  constitution  of  Parliament  itself.  This  system, 
however,  the  king  was  determined  to  subvert.  He  was  jeal- 
ous of  ministers  who  derived  their  authority  from  Parlia- 
ment rather  than  from  himself,  and  of  the  parliamentary 
organization  which  controlled  his  power.  The  policy  which 
he  adopted,  and  its  results,  are  among  the  most  critical  events 
in  the  history  of  the  Crown. 

The  dissolution  of  Parliament,  shortly  after  his  acces- 
King’s  inter  S10n’  a^or(^e(^  an  opportunity  of  strengthening  the 
est  strength-  parliamentary  connection  of  the  king’s  friends, 
general  elec-  Parliament  was  kept  sitting  while  the  king  and 
Lord  Bute  were  making  out  lists  of  the  court 
candidates,  and  using  every  exertion  to  secure  their  return. 
The  king  not  only  wrested  government  boroughs  from  the 
ministers,  in  order  to  nominate  his  own  friends,  but  even  en- 
couraged opposition  to  such  ministers  as  he  conceived  not  to 
be  in  his  interest.1 

At  the  meeting  at  the  cockpit,  the  night  before  the  assem- 
bling of  the  new  Parliament,  to  hear  the  king’s  speech  read, 
and  to  agree  upon  the  choice  of  a speaker,  not  only  the 
Whigs  and  parliamentary  supporters  of  the  government 
attended ; but  also  the  old  Tories  in  a strong  body,  though 
without  any  invitation  from  the  ministers.2  The  speaker 
selected  by  Lord  Bute  was  Sir  John  Oust,  a country  gentle- 
man and  a Tory. 

Lord  Bute,  the  originator  of  the  new  policy,  was  not  per- 
Measures  tak  sonalty  well  qualified  for  its  successful  promotion, 
en  to  break  He  was  not  connected  with  the  great  families  who 

up  the  minis-  . ° 

try.  had  acquired  a preponderance  of  political  mflu- 

1 The  Duke  of  Newcastle  thus  wrote  at  this  time  to  Lord  Rockingham : — 
“ My  Lord  Anson  has  received  orders  from  the  king  himself  to  declare  to 
the  docks  (at  Portsmouth)  that  they  may  vote  for  whom  they  please  at  the 
Hampshire  election,  even  though  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  is  a candi- 
date.”  Lord  Bute  complained  to  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  that  he 
had  disposed  of  the  Admiralty  boroughs  without  acquainting  the  king.  — 
Dodingtori’s  Diary , 433;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  61-64. 

2 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  68 ; Dodington’s  Diary,  433. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


29 


ence ; he  was  no  parliamentary  debater : his  manners  were 
unpopular : he  was  a courtier  rather  than  a politician : his 
intimate  relations  with  the  Princess  of  Wales  were  an  object 
of  scandal ; and,  above  all,  he  was  a Scotchman.  The  jeal- 
ousy of  foreigners,  which  had  shown  itself  in  hatred  of  the 
Hanoverians,  was  now  transferred  to  the  Scottish  nation, 
whose  connection  with  the  late  civil  war  had  exposed  them 
to  popular  obloquy.  The  scheme  was  such  as  naturally 
occurred  to  a favorite ; but  it  required  more  than  the  talents 
of  a favorite  to  accomplish.  While  only  in  the  king’s  house- 
hold, his  influence  was  regarded  with  jealousy : remarks  were 
already  made  upon  the  unlucky  circumstance  of  his  being  a 
“Scot;”  and  popular  prejudices  were  aroused  against  him, 
before  he  was  ostensibly  concerned  in  public  affairs.  Imme- 
diately after  the  king’s  accession  he  had  been  made  a privy 
councillor,  and  admitted  into  the  cabinet.  An  arrangement 
was  soon  afterwards  concerted,  by  which  Lord  Holdernesse 
retired  from  office  with  a pension,  and  Lord  Bute  succeeded 
him  as  Secretary  of  State.1 

It  was  now  the  object  of  the  court  to  break  up  the  exist- 
ing ministry,  and  to  replace  it  with  another,  formed  from 
among  the  king’s  friends.  Had  the  ministry  been  united, 
and  had  the  chiefs  reposed  confidence  in  one  another,  it 
would  have  been  difficult  to  overthrow  them.  But  there 
were  already  jealousies  amongst  them,  which  the  court  lost 
no  opportunity  of  fomenting.2  A breach  soon  arose  between 
Mr.  Pitt,  the  most  powerful  and  popular  of  the  ministers, 
and  his  colleagues.  He  desired  to  strike  a sudden  blow 
against  Spain,  which  had  concluded  a secret  treaty  of  alli- 

1 25th  March,  1761. 

2 Lord  Hardwicke  said,  “ He  (Lord  Bute)  principally  availed  himself 
with  great  art  and  finesse  of  the  dissensions  between  the  Duke  of  Newcas- 
tle and  Mr.  Pitt:  he  played  off  one  against  the  other  till  he  got  rid  of  the 
popular  minister,  and  when  that  was  compassed,  he  strengthened  himself 
in  the  cabinet,  by  bringing  in  Lord  Egremont  and  Mr.  Grenville,  and  never 
left  intriguing  till  he  had  rendered  it  impracticable  for  the  old  duke  to  con- 
tinue in  office  with  credit  and  honor.”  — Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  6.  See  the 
duke’s  own  letters,  ib .,  102-109. 


30 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


ance  with  France,  then  at  war  with  this  country.1  Though 
war  minister,  he  was  opposed  by  all  his  colleagues  except 
Lord  Temple.  He  bore  himself  haughtily  at  the  council, 
— declared  that  he  had  been  called  to  the  ministry  by  the 
voice  of  the  people,  and  that  he  could  not  be  responsible  for 
measures  which  he  was  no  longer  allowed  to  guide.  Being 
met  with  equal  loftiness  in  the  cabinet,  he  was  forced  to  ten- 
der his  resignation.2 

The  king  overpowered  the  retiring  minister  with  kind- 
Pension  to  ness  an^  condescension.  He  offered  the  barony  of 
Mr.  Pitt.  Chatham  to  his  wife,  and  to  himself  an  annuity 
of  3,000/.  a year  for  three  lives.3  The  minister  had  de- 
served these  royal  favors,  and  he  accepted  them,  but  at  the 
cost  of  his  popularity.  It  was  an  artful  stroke  of  policy, 
thus  at  once  to  conciliate  and  weaken  the  popular  statesman, 
whose  opposition  was  to  be  dreaded,  — and  it  succeeded. 
The  same  Gazette  which  announced  his  resignation,  also 
trumpeted  forth  the  peerage  and  the  pension,  and  was  the 
signal  for  clamors  against  the  public  favorite. 

On  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Pitt,  Lord  Bute  became  the 
influence  of  most  influential  of  the  ministers.  He  undertook 
Lord  Bute.  the  chjef  management  of  public  affairs  in  the  cab- 
inet, and  the  sole  direction  of  the  House  of  Lords.4  He 
consulted  none  of  his  colleagues,  except  Lord  Egremont 
and  Mr.  George  Grenville.5  His  ascendency  provoked  the 

1 Grenville  Papers,  i.  386. 

2 Ann.  Reg.,  1761  [43].  Grenville  Papers,  i.  391,  405.  Mr.  Pitt,  in  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Beckford,  October  15th,  1761,  says,  “A  difference  of  opinion 
with  regard  to  measures  to  be  taken  against  Spain,  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance to  the  honor  of  the  Crown,  and  to  the  most  essential  national  inter- 
ests, and  this  founded  on  what  Spain  had  already  done,  not  on  what  that 
court  may  further  intend  to  do,  was  the  cause  of  my  resigning  the  seals.”  — 
Chatham  Corresp .,  ii.  159. 

8 Mr.  Pitt  said,  “ I confess,  Sir,  I had  but  too  much  reason  to  expect  your 
Majesty’s  displeasure.  I did  not  come  prepared  for  this  exceeding  good- 
ness. Pardon  me,  Sir,  it  overpowers,  it  oppresses  me,”  and  burst  into 
tears.  — Ann.  Reg. ; Grenville  Papers,  i.  413. 

4 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  54,  86, 101  (Letters  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle). 

8 Ibid.,  104. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


31 


jealousy  and  resentment  of  the  king’s  veteran  minister,  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle:  who  had  hitherto  distributed  all  the 
patronage  of  the  Crown,  but  now  was  never  consulted.  The 
king  himself  created  seven  peers,  without  even  acquainting 
him  with  their  creation.1  Lord  Bute  gave  away  places  and 
pensions  to  his  own  friends,  and  paid  no  attention  to  the 
recommendations  of  the  duke.  At  length,  in  May  1762,  his 
grace,  after  frequent  disagreements  in  the  cabinet  and  nu- 
merous affronts,  was  obliged  to  resign.2 

And  now,  the  object  of  the  court  being  at  length  attained, 
Lord  Bute  was  immediately  placed  at  the  head  of  Lord  Bute  as 
affairs,  as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  Bapid  had  Premier* 
been  the  rise  of  the  king’s  favorite.  In  thirteen  months  he 
had  been  groom  of  the  stole,  a privy  councillor,  ranger  of 
Richmond  Park,  secretary  of  state,  and  premier ; 3 and  these 
favors  were  soon  followed  by  his  installation  as  a Knight  of 
the  Garter,  at  the  same  time  as  the  king’s  own  brother, 
Prince  William.  His  sudden  elevation  resembled  that  of  an 
eastern  vizier,  rather  than  the  toilsome  ascent  of  a British 
statesman.  But  the  confidence  of  his  royal  master  served 
to  aggravate  the  jealousies  by  which  the  new  minister  was 
surrounded,  to  widen  the  breach  between  himself  and  the 
leaders  of  the  Whig  party,  and  to  afford  occasion  for  pop- 
ular reproaches.  It  has  been  insinuated  that  he  was  urged 
forward  by  secret  enemies,  in  order  to  insure  his  speedier 
fall ; 4 and  it  is  certain  that  had  he  been  contented  with  a 

1 Walpole  Mem.,  i.  158. 

2 The  personal  demeanor  of  the  king  towards  him  evinced  the  feeling 
with  which  he  had  long  been  regarded.  The  duke  complained  of  it  in 
this  manner:  “ The  king  did  not  drop  one  word  of  concern  at  my  leav- 
ing him  nor  even  made  me  a polite  compliment,  after  near  fifty  years’  ser- 
vice and  devotion  to  the  interests  of  his  royal  family.  I will  say  nothing 
more  of  myself,  but  that  I believe  never  any  man  was  so  dismissed.”  — 
Letter  to  Lord  Rockingham,  May  Vttth,  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  111.  Yet  Lord 
Bute,  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Grenville,  May  25th,  1762,  says,  “ The  king’s  con- 
duct to  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  to-day  was  great  and  generous.” — Gren- 
ville Papers,  i.  448. 

3 His  countess  also  received  an  English  barony. 

4 Walpole  Mem.,  i.  44. 


32 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


less  prominent  place,  the  consummation  of  his  peculiar  pol- 
icy could  have  been  more  securely,  and  perhaps  more  suc- 
cessfully, accomplished. 

The  king  and  his  minister  were  resolved  to  carry  matters 
Arbitrary  with  a high  hand,1  and  their  arbitrary  attempts 
kingUandfthe to  coerce  an(^  intimidate  opponents  disclosed  their 
new  ministry,  imperious  views  of  the  prerogative.  Prelimina- 
ries of  a treaty  of  peace  with  France  having  been  agreed 
upon,  against  which  a strong  popular  feeling  was  aroused, 
the  king’s  vengeance  was  directed  against  all  who  ventured 
to  disapprove  them. 

The  Duke  of  Devonshire  having  declined  to  attend  the 
council  summoned  to  decide  upon  the  peace,  was  insulted  by 
the  king,  and  forced  to  resign  his  office  of  Lord  Chamber- 
lain.2  A few  days  afterwards  the  king,  with  his  own  hand, 
struck  his  grace’s  name  from  the  list  of  privy  councillors. 
For  so  great  a severity  the  only  precedents  in  the  late  reign 
were  those  of  Lord  Bath  and  Lord  George  Sackville ; “ the 
first,”  says  Walpole,  “in  open  and  virulent  opposition;  the 
second  on  his  ignominious  sentence  after  the  battle  of  Min- 
den.” 3 No  sooner  had  Lord  Rockingham  heard  of  the 
treatment  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  than  he  sought  an 
audience  of  the  king ; and  having  stated  that  those  “ who 
had  hitherto  deservedly  had  the  greatest  weight  in  the  coun- 
try were  now  driven  out  of  any  share  in  the  government, 
and  marked  out  rather  as  objects  of  his  Majesty’s  displeas- 
ure than  of  his  favor,”  resigned  his  place  in  the  household.4 

A more  general  proscription  of  the  Whig  nobles  soon  fol- 
lowed. The  Dukes  of  Newcastle  and  Grafton,  and  the  Mar 
quess  of  Rockingham  having  presumed,  as  peers  of  Parlia- 

1 “ The  king,  it  was  given  out,  would  be  king,  — would  not  be  dictated 
to  by  his  ministers,  as  his  grandfather  had  been.  The  prerogative  was  to 
shine  out:  great  lords  must  be  humbled.”  — Walp.  Mem.,  i.  200. 

2 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  201;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  135  (Letter  of  Duke  of  New- 
castle to  Lord  Rockingham). 

3 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  203. 

4 Letter  to  Duke  of  Cumberland;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  142. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN.  33 

ment,  to  express  their  disapprobation  of  the  peace,  were 
dismissed  from  the  lord-lieutenancies  of  their  counties.1  The 
Duke  of  Devonshire,  in  order  to  share  the  fate  of  his  friends 
and  avoid  the  affront  of  dismissal,  resigned  the  lieutenancy 
of  his  county.2 

Nor  was  the  vengeance  of  the  court  confined  to  the  heads 
of  the  Whig  party.  All  placemen,  who  had  voted  against 
the  preliminaries  of  peace,  were  dismissed.  Their  humble 
friends  and  clients  were  also  proscribed.  Clerks  were  re- 
moved from  public  offices,  and  inferior  officers  from  the 
customs,  and  excise,  and  other  small  appointments,  for  no 
other  offence  than  that  of  having  been  appointed  by  their 
obnoxious  patrons.3  While  bribes  were  being  lavished  to 
purchase  adhesion  to  the  court  policy,  this  severity  was  in- 
tended to  discourage  opposition. 

The  preliminaries  of  peace  were  approved  by  Parliament ; 
and  the  Princess  of  Wales,  exulting  in  the  success  Itg  effect  up_ 
of  the  court,  exclaimed,  “ Now  my  son  is  king  of  on  ^ rties * 
England.” 4 But  her  exultation  was  premature.  As  yet 
there  had  been  little  more  than  a contention  for  power,  be- 
tween rival  parties  in  the  aristocracy ; but  these  stretches 
of  prerogative  served  to  unite  the  Whigs  into  an  organized 
opposition.  Since  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover, 
this  party  had  supported  the  Crown  as  ministers.  It  now 
became  their  office  to  assert  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and 
to  resist  the  encroachments  of  prerogative.  Thus  the  king’s 
attempt  to  restore  the  personal  influence  of  the  Sovereign, 
which  the  Revolution  had  impaired,  so  far  from  strengthen- 
ing the  throne,  advanced  the  popular  cause,  and  gave  it  pow- 
erful leaders,  whose  interests  had  hitherto  been  enlisted  on 
the  side  of  the  Crown.  Claims  of  prerogative  became  the 

1 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  155. 

2 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  235;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  156. 

3 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  233;  Grenville  Papers,  i.  453;  Rockingham,  Mem.,  i. 
152, 158. 

4 Walp.  Mem.,  i.  233. 

VOL.  i.  3 


34 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


signal  for  the  assertion  of  new  rights  and  liberties,  on  the 
part  of  the  people. 

The  fall  of  the  king’s  favored  minister  was  even  more 
Sudden  fail  of  sudden  than  his  rise.  He  shrank  from  the  diffi- 
Lord  Bute,  culties  of  his  position,  — a disunited  cabinet,  — a 
formidable  opposition,  — doubtful  support  from  his  friends, 
— the  bitter  hatred  of  his  enemies,  — a libellous  press,  — - 
and  notorious  unpopularity.1  Afraid,  as  he  confessed,  “ not 
only  of  falling  himself,  but  of  involving  his  royal  master  in 
his  ruin,”  he  resigned  suddenly,  — to  the  surprise  of  all 
parties,  and  even  of  the  king  himself,  — before  he  had  held 
office  for  eleven  months.  But  his  short  administration  had 
indulged  the  king’s  love  of  rule,  and  encouraged  him  to  pro- 
ceed with  his  cherished  scheme  for  taking  an  active  part  in 
the  direction  of  public  affairs. 

Nor  did  Lord  Bute  propose  to  relinquish  his  own  power 
His  continued  together  wfith  his  office.  He  retreated  to  the  inte- 
with  the  king,  rior  cabinet,  whence  he  could  direct  more  securely 
the  measures  of  the  court ; 2 having  previously  negotiated 
the  appointment  of  Mr.  George  Grenville  as  his  successor, 
and  arranged  with  him  the  nomination  of  the  cabinet.3  The 
The  Grenville  ministry  of  Mr.  Grenville  was  constituted  in  a 
mimstry,  manner  favorable  to  the  king’s  personal  views, 
and  was  expected  to  be  under  the  control  of  himself  and 
his  favorite.  And  at  first  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Mr. 
Grenville  found  himself  the  mere  agent  of  the  court.  “ The 
voice  was  Jacob’s  voice,  but  the  hands  were  the  hands  of 
Esau.”  “ The  public  looked  still  at  Lord  Bute  through  the 
curtain,”  said  Lord  Chesterfield,  “ which  indeed  was  a very 
transparent  one.”  But  Mr.  Grenville  was  by  no  means  con- 
tented with  the  appearance  of  power.  He  was  jealous  of 
Lord  Bute’s  superior  influence,  and  complained  to  the  king 

1 He  was  hissed  and  pelted  at  the  opening  of  Parliament,  25th  Nov.,  1762, 
and  his  family  were  alarmed  for  his  personal  safety. 

2 Mr.  Grenville  to  Lord  Egremont ; Grenville  Papers,  ii.  85. 

8 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  32,  33. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


35 


that  his  Majesty’s  confidence  was  withheld  from  his  minis- 
ter.1 As  fond  of  power  as  the  king  himself,  — and  with  a 
will  as  strong  and  imperious,  — tenacious  of  his  rights  as  a 
minister,  and  confident  in  his  own  abilities  and  influence,  — 
he  looked  to  Parliament  rather  than  to  the  Crown,  as  the 
source  of  his  authority. 

The  king  finding  his  own  scheme  of  government  opposed, 
and  disliking  the  uncongenial  views  and  hard  The  king 
temper  of  his  minister,  resolved  to  dismiss  him  ^r(^r 
on  the  first  convenient  opportunity.2  Accord-  pitt- 
ingly,  on  the  death  of  Lord  Egremont,  he  commissioned 
Lord  Bute  to  open  negotiations  with  Mr.  Pitt,  for  the  for- 
mation of  a new  administration.  And  now  the  king  tasted 
the  bitter  fruits  of  his  recent  policy.  He  had  proscribed 
the  Whig  leaders.  He  had  determined  “ never  upon  any 
account  to  suffer  those  ministers  of  the  late  reign,  who  had 
attempted  to  fetter  and  enslave  him,  to  come  into  his  ser- 
vice, while  he  lived  to  hold  the  sceptre.”3  Yet  these  were 
the  very  ministers  whom  Mr.  Pitt  proposed  to  restore  to 
power  ; and  stranger  still,  — the  premier,  in  whom  the  king 
was  asked  to  repose  his  confidence,  was  Earl  Temple,  who 
had  recently  aroused  his  bitter  resentment.  His  Majesty 
was  not  likely  so  soon  to  retract  his  resolution,  and  refused 
these  hateful  terms : “ My  honor  is  concerned,”  he  said, 
66  and  I must  support  it.”  4 The  Grenville  ministry,  how- 
ever distasteful,  was  not  so  hard  to  bear  as  the  restoration 
of  the  dreaded  Whigs ; and  he  was  therefore  obliged  to  re- 
tain it.  Mr.  Grenville  now  remonstrated  more  strongly 
than  ever  against  the  influence  of  the  favorite  who  had  been 
employed  to  supplant  him : the  king  promised  his  confidence 
to  the  ministers,  and  Lord  Bute  retired  from  the  court.5 

1 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  84,  85,  89.  2 Ibid.,  ii.  83,  85. 

8 Letter  of  Lord  Bute  to  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  2d  April,  1763;  Duke  of 
Bedford’s  Correspondence,  iii.  224;  see  also  Grenville  Papers,  ii.  93,  105, 

196. 

4 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  96,  107. 

6 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  106,  483,  500;  Chatham  Corresp.,  ii.  236;  Pari. 
Hist.,  xv.  1327. 


36 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


Though  George  III.  and  Mr.  Grenville  differed  as  to 
their  relative  powers,  they  were  but  too  well 

Active  inter-  . . _ 

est  of  the  king  agreed  in  their  policy.  .Both  were  arbitrary  in 
i^eshofmgov-  their  views,  impatient  of  opposition,  and  resolute 
ernment.  jn  ^he  exercise  of  authority.  The  chief  claims 
of  the  Grenville  ministry  to  distinction  were  its  arbitrary 
proceedings  against  Wilkes,  which  the  king  encouraged  and 
approved,  and  the  first  taxation  of  America,  which  he  him- 
self suggested.1  In  the  policy  of  proscription,  which  had 
disgraced  the  late  administration,  the  king  was  even  more 
forward  than  his  ministers.  Earl  Temple’s  friendship  for 
Wilkes  was  punished  by  the  erasure  of  his  name  from  the 
list  of  privy  councillors,  and  by  dismissal  from  the  lord-lieu- 
tenancy of  his  county.2  General  Conway,  Colonel  Barre, 
and  Colonel  A’ Court  were,  for  their  votes  in  Parliament, 
deprived  of  their  military  commands,3  and  Lord  Shelburne 
of  his  office  of  aide-de-camp  to  his  Majesty. 

The  privileges  of  Parliament  were  systematically  violated 
His  violation  by  the  king.  In  order  to  guard  against  the  ar- 
leges  o^Par-  bitrary  interference  of  the  Crown  in  its  proceed- 
liament.  ings,  Parliament  had  established,  for  centuries, 
the  constitutional  doctrine  that  the  king  should  not  hear  or 
give  credit  to  reports  of  its  debates,  and  that  no  member 
should  suffer  molestation  for  his  speaking  or  reasoning.4 
Yet,  during  the  proceedings  of  the  Commons  against  Wilkes, 
the  king  obtained  from  Mr.  Grenville  the  most  minute  and 
circumstantial  reports.  Not  only  did  he  watch  the  progress 
of  every  debate,  and  the  result  of  each  division,  but  he  kept 
a jealous  eye  upon  the  opinions  and  votes  of  every  member ; 
and  expressed  his  personal  resentment  against  all  who  did 
not  support  the  government.  It  was  he  who  first  proposed 
the  dismissal  of  General  Conway,  “ both  from  his  civil  and 
military  commissions  : ” it  was  he  who  insisted  on  the  re- 

1 Wraxall’s  Mem.,  ii.  111. 

2 May  7th,  1763;  Grenville  Papers,  ii.  55. 

8 Chatham  Correspondence,  ii.  275  ; Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  65. 

4 Rot.  Pari.,  iii.  456,  611;  4 Hen.  VIII.  c.  8. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


37 


moval . of  Mr.  Fitzherbert  from  the  Board  of  Trade,  and 
of  all  placemen  who  took  a different  view  of  parliamentary 
privilege  from  that  adopted  by  the  court.1  Mr.  Grenville 
endeavored  to  moderate  the  king’s  severity : he  desired  to 
postpone  such  violent  measures  till  the  proceedings  against 
Wilkes  should  be  concluded  ; 2 and,  in  the  mean  time,  opened 
communications  with  General  Conway  in  the  hope  of  avert- 
ing his  dismissal.3  But  at  length  the  blow  was  struck,  and 
General  Conway  was  dismissed  not  only  from  his  office  of 
Groom  of  the  Bedchamber,  but  from  the  command  of  his 
regiment  of  dragoons.4 5  Mr.  Calcraft  was  also  deprived  of 
the  office  of  Deputy  Muster-Master.6  The  king  himself 
was,  throughout,  the  chief  promoter  of  this  policy  of  pro- 
scription.6 

To  commit  General  Conway  or  Colonel  Barre  to  prison, 
as  James  I.  had  committed  Sir  Edwin  Sandys,  and  as  Charles 
I.  had  committed  Selden  and  other  leading  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  could  not  now  have  been  attempted. 
Nor  was  the  ill-omened  venture  of  Charles  I.  against  the 
five  members  likely  to  be  repeated  ; but  the  king  was  violat- 
ing the  same  principles  of  constitutional  government  as  his 
arbitrary  predecessors.  He  punished,  as  far  as  he  was  able, 
those  who  had  incurred  his  displeasure,  for  their  conduct  in 
Parliament;  and  denied  them  the  protection  which  they 

1 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  162, 165,  166  (letters  from  the  king  to  Mr.  Gren- 
ville, 16th,  23d,  and  24th  Nov.,  1763);  ibid.,  223,  228-9. 

2 Ibid.,  224,  229,  230,  266,  267,  484  (Diary,  16th,  25th,  and  30th  Nov.;  2d 
Dec.,  1763;  19th  Jan.,  1764). 

3 Ibid.,  231-233. 

4 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  296.  11  Mr.  Grenville  never  would  admit  the  dis- 
tinction between  civil  and  military  appointments.” — Grenville  Papers,  ii. 
234,  507.  It  has  been  stated  that  General  Conway  voted  once  only  against 
the  ministry  on  General  Warrants,  having  supported  them  in  the  contest 
with  Wilkes  ( History  of  a Late  Minority,  291;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  178); 
but  this  was  not  the  case.  Mr.  Grenville  in  his  Diary,  Nov.  15th,  1763, 
speaks  of  Mr.  Conway’s  vote  both  times  with  the  minority.  — Grenville 
Papers,  ii.  223. 

5 Ibid.,  231. 

6 Ibid.,  297 ; Walp.  Mem.,  i.  403;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  178. 


38 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


claimed  from  privilege,  and  the  laws  of  their  country.  Yet 
the  Commons  submitted  to  this  violation  of  their  freedom, 
with  scarcely  a murmur.1 

The  riots  and  popular  discontents  of  this  period  ought  to 
Public  dis-*  have  convinced  the  king  that  his  statesmanship 
contents.  was  not  successful.  He  had  already  sacrificed  his 
popularity  to  an  ill-regulated  love  of  power.  But  he  contin- 
ued to  direct  every  measure  of  the  government,  whether  of 
legislation,  of  administration,  or  of  patronage  ; and  by  means 
of  the  faithful  reports  of  his  minister,  he  constantly  assisted, 
as  it  were,  in  the  deliberations  of  Parliament.2 * 

In  1765,  differences  again  arose  between  the  king  and  the 
King’s  differ-  Grenville  ministry.  They  had  justly  offended  him 
foenvuie1  the  ^7  their  mismanagement  of  the  Regency  Bill,8  — 
ministry.  they  had  disputed  with  him  on  questions  of  pat- 
ronage and  expenditure,  — they  had  wearied  him  with  long 
arguments  in  the  closet ; 4 and,  in  the  month  of  May,  having 
completely  lost  his  Majesty’s  confidence,  he  intimated  to  them 
his  intention  of  dispensing  with  their  services.  But  the 
king,  after  vain  negotiations  with  Mr.  Pitt  through  the  Duke 
of  Cumberland,  finding  himself  unable  to  form  another  ad- 
ministration, was  again  compelled  to  retain  them  in  office. 
They  had  suspected  the  secret  influence  of  Lord  Bute  in 
thwarting  their  counsels  ; and  to  him  they  attributed  their 
dismissal.5 * *  The  first  condition,  therefore,  on  which  they 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xvi.  1765. 

2 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  4-15,  21-37.  The  king’s  communications  were 
sometimes  sufficiently  peremptory.  Writing  May  21st,  1765,  he  says : “ Mr. 
Grenville,  I am  surprised  that  you  are  not  yet  come,  when  you  know  it  was 
my  orders  to  be  attended  this  evening.  I expect  you,  therefore,  to  come 
the  moment  you  receive  this.”  — Grenville  Papers , iii.  40. 

8 See  infra,  p.  144. 

4 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  161. 

6 So  great  was  the  jealousy  of  Mr.  Grenville  and  the  Duke  of  Bedford  of 

the  influence  of  Lord  Bute  in  1764,  that  they  were  anxious  to  insist  upon 

his  remaining  in  the  country,  though  he  said  he  was  tired  of  it,  and  had 

daughters  to  marry,  and  other  business.  — Mr.  Grenville's  Diary , 16th  and 
28th  Jan.,  1764;  Grenville  Papers , ii.  483,  488. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


39 


consented  to  remain  in  office,  was  that  Lord  Bute  should  not 
be  suffered  to  interfere  in  his  Majesty’s  councils  “ in  any 
manner  or  shape  whatever.”  1 To  this  the  king  pledged  him- 
self,2 and  though  suspicions  of  a secret  correspondence  with 
Lord  Bute  were  still  entertained,  there  is  every  reason  for 
believing  that  he  adhered  to  his  promise.3  Indeed,  he  had 
already  acquired  so  much  confidence  in  his  own  aptitude  for 
business,  that  he  no  longer  relied  upon  the  counsels  of  his 
favorite.4  He  was  able  to  rule  alone  ; and  wanted  instru- 
ments, rather  than  advisers.  The  second  condition  was  the 
dismissal  of  Mr.  Stuart  Mackenzie,  Lord  Bute’s  brother, 
from  the  office  of  Privy  Seal  in  Scotland,  and  from  the  man- 
agement of  the  affairs  of  that  country.  In  this,  too,  the  king 
yielded,  though  solely  against  his  will,  as  he  had  promised 
the  office  for  life.5  Meanwhile  the  breach  between  the  king 
and  his  ministers  became  still  wider.  They  had  been  forced 

1 Minute  of  Cabinet,  22d  May,  1765;  Grenville  Papers,  iii.  41;  ib .,  184; 
Adolphus,!.  170. 

2 “ At  eleven  o’clock  at  night  the  king  sent  for  Mr.  Grenville,  and  told 
him  he  had  considered  upon  the  proposals  made  to  him : he  did  promise  and 
declare  to  them  that  Lord  Bute  should  never,  directly  nor  indirectly,  have 
anything  to  do  with  his  business,  nor  give  advice  upon  anything  what- 
ever.” — Diary ; Grenville  Papers , iii.  185. 

3 Mem.  of  C.  J.  Fox,  i.  65-68,  111 ; Mr.  Mackintosh  to  Earl  Temple,  Aug. 
30th,  1765,  Grenville  Papers,  iii.  81.  WraxalVs  Mem.,  ii.  73,  &c.  Mr.  Gren- 
ville was  still  so  suspicious  of  Lord  Bute’s  influence,  that  being  told  in  No- 
vember, 1765,  by  Mr.  Jenkinson,  that  Lord  Bute  had  only  seen  the  king 
twice  during  his  illness  in  the  spring,  he  says  in  his  diary:  “ Which  fact 
Mr.  Grenville  could  not  be  brought  to  believe.  He  owned,  however,  to  Mr. 
Grenville  that  the  intercourse  in  writing  between  his  Majesty  and  Lord 
Bute  always  continued,  telling  him  that  he  knew  the  king  wrote  to  him  a 
journal  every  day  of  what  passed,  and  as  minute  a one  as  if,  said  he,  1 your 
boy  at  school  was  directed  by  you  to  write  his  journal  to  you.’  ” — Grenville 
Papers , iii.  220. 

It  was  not  until  Dec.  1768,  that  Mr.  Grenville  seems  to  have  been  per- 
suaded that  Lord  Bute’s  influence  was  lost.  He  then  concurred  in  the  pre- 
vailing opinion  of  “ the  king  being  grown  indifferent  to  him,  but  the 
princess  being  in  the  same  sentiments  towards  him  as  before.”  — Diary  ; 
Grenville  Papers , iv.  408. 

4 Bedford  Corresp.,  iii.  264. 

5 Walp.  Geo.  III.,  ii.  175;  Grenville  Papers,  iii.  185.  He  was  afterwards 
restored  in  1766  by  the  Earl  of  Chatham.  — Ib.,  362. 


40 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


upon  him  by  necessity ; they  knew  that  he  was  plotting  their 
speedy  overthrow,  and  protested  against  the  intrigues  by 
which  their  influence  was  counteracted.  The  Duke  of  Bed- 
ford besought  the  king  “ to  permit  his  authority  and  his 
favor  to  go  together  ; ” 1 and  these  remonstrances  were  rep- 
resented by  the  king’s  friends  as  insolent  and  overbearing.2 
An  outcry  was  raised  against  the  ministers  that  they  “ desired 
to  enslave  the  king,”  who  was  now  determined  to  make  any 
sacrifices  to  get  rid  of  them. 

The  negotiations  for  a new  ministry  were  again  conducted 
XT  , . on  behalf  of  the  king,  by  his  uncle  the  Duke  of 

with  the  Cumberland.  Such  was  the  popular  hatred  of 

Whigs.  . A A 

Lord  Bute  and  his  countrymen,  that  the  Duke’s 
former  severities  against  the  Scotch,  which  had  gained  for  him 
the  name  of  “ the  Butcher,”  were  now  a claim  to  popular  favor. 
The  rebellious  Scots  had  been  treated  as  they  deserved ; and 
he  who  had  already  chastised  them,  was  not  the  man  to  favor 
their  pretensions  at  court. 

These  negotiations  were  protracted  for  seven  weeks,  while 
July,  1765.  the  country  was  virtually  without  a government.3 
Mr.  Pitt  was  again  impracticable : the  further  continuance 
of  the  Grenville  ministry  could  not  be  endured;  and,  at 
length,  the  king  was  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  surrender- 
ing himself  once  more  to  the  very  men  whom  he  most 
dreaded. 

The  Marquess  of  Rockingham,  the  leader  of  the  obnox- 
Rockmgham  i°us  Whig  aristocracy,  — the  statesman  whom  he 
ministry.  Racl  recently  removed  from  his  lieutenancy,  — the 
king  was  now  obliged  to  accept  as  Premier ; and  General 
Conway,  whom  he  had  deprived  of  his  regiment,  became  a 
Secretary  of  State,  and  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
The  policy  of  proscription  was,  for  a time  at  least,  reversed 


1 12th  June,  1765;  Bedford  Correspondence,  iii.  Introd.,  pp.  xliii.  xlv. 
286 ; Grenville  Papers,  iii.  194. 

2 Junius,  Letter  xxiii. ; Burke’s  Works,  ii.  156;  Walp.  Geo.  III.,  ii.  182; 
Bedford  Corresp.,  iii.  286. 
s Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  192. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


41 


and  condemned.  Mr.  Pitt,  when  solicited  by  the  Duke  of 
Cumberland  to  take  office,  had  named  as  one  of  his  _ . , ^ 

7 t # Dismissal  of 

conditions,  the  restoration  of  officers  dismissed  on  officers  con- 

political  grounds.  This  the  king  had  anticipated, 
and  was  prepared  to  grant.1  The  Rockingham  administration 
insisted  on  the  same  terms ; and  according  to  Mr.  Burke 
“ discountenanced,  and  it  is  hoped  forever  abolished,  the 
dangerous  and  unconstitutional  practice  of  removing  mili- 
tary officers,  for  their  votes  in  Parliament.” 2 

The  Whig  leaders  were  not  less  jealous  of  the  influence 
of  Lord  Bute,  than  the  ministry  whom  they  dis-  conditions  of 
placed  ; and  before  they  would  accept  office,  they 
insisted  “ that  the  thought  of  replacing  Mr.  Mac- try' 
kenzie  should  be  laid  aside ; and  also  that  some  of  the  partic- 
ular friends  of  the  Earl  of  Bute  should  be  removed,  as  a 
proof  to  the  world  that  the  Earl  of  Bute  should  not  either 
publicly  or  privately,  directly  or  indirectly,  have  any  con- 
cern or  influence  in  public  affairs,  or  in  the  management  or 
disposition  of  public  employments.”  3 These  conditions  be- 
ing agreed  to,  a ministry  so  constituted  was  likely  to  be  in- 
dependent of  court  influence  : yet  it  was  soon  reproached 
with  submission  to  the  u interior  cabinet.”  Mr.  The  king,s 
Pitt  said,  “ Methinks  I plainly  discover  the  traces  friends- 
of  an  overruling  influence  ; ” and  while  he  disavowed  any 
prejudice  against  the  country  of  Lord  Bute,  he  declared  that 
“ the  man  of  that  country  wanted  wisdom,  and  held  prin- 
ciples incompatible  with  freedom.”  This  supposed  influence 
was  disclaimed  on  the  part  of  the  government  by  General 
Conway : “ I see  nothing  of  it,”  said  he,  “ I feel  nothing  of 
it : I disclaim  it  for  myself,  and  as  far  as  my  discernment  can 
reach,  for  the  rest  of  his  Majesty’s  ministers.” 4 

Whether  Lord  Bute  had,  at  this  time,  any  influence  at 

1 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  165;  Duke  of  Cumberland’s  Narrative;  Rockingham 
Mem.,  i.  193-196. 

2 Short  Account  of  a Late  Short  Administration. 

3 Paper  drawn  up  by  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Rockingham  Mem .,  i.  218. 

* Debate  on  the  Address,  1766,  Pari.  Hist .,  xvi.  97,  101. 


42 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


court,  was  long  a subject  of  court  and  controversy.  It  was 
confidently  believed  by  the  public,  and  by  many  of  the  best 
informed  of  his  contemporaries ; but  Lord  Bute,  several 
years  afterwards,  so  explicitly  denied  it,  that  his  denial  may 
be  accepted  as  conclusive.1  The  king’s  friends,  however, 
had  become  more  numerous,  and  acted  under  better  discipline. 
Some  of  them  held  offices  in  the  government  or  household, 
yet  looked  to  the  king  for  instructions,  instead  of  to  the  min- 
isters. These  generally  had  obscure  but  lucrative  offices,  in 
the  gift  of  the  king  himself  and  other  members  of  the  royal 
family.2  But  the  greater  part  of  the  king’s  friends  were 
independent  members  of  Parliament,  whom  various  motives 
had  attracted  to  the  personal  support  of  the  king.  Many 
were  influenced  by  high  notions  of  prerogative,  — by  loyalty, 
by  confidence  in  the  judgment  and  honesty  of  the  king,  and 
by  personal  attachment  to  his  Majesty,  — and  many  by 
hopes  of  favor  and  advancement.  They  formed  a distinct 
party,  and  their  coherence  was  secured  by  the  same  causes 
which  generally  contribute  to  the  formation  of  party  ties. 
But  their  principles  and  position  were  inconsistent  with  con- 
stitutional government.  Their  services  to  the  king  were  no 
longer  confined  to  counsel,  or  political  intrigue  ; but  were 
organized  so  as  to  influence  the  deliberations  of  Parliament. 
And  their  organization  for  such  a purpose,  marked  a further 
advance  in  the  unconstitutional  policy  of  the  court. 

The  king  continued  personally  to  direct  the  measures  of 


1 His  son,  Lord  Mountstuart,  writing  Oct.  23,  1773,  said:  “ Lord  Bute 
authorizes  me  to  say  that  he  declares  upon  his  solemn  word  of  honor,  he 
has  not  had  the  honor,  of  waiting  on  his  Majesty,  but  at  his  lev4e  or  draw- 
ing-room; nor  has  he  presumed  to  offer  any  advice  or  opinion  concerning 
the  disposition  of  offices,  or  the  conduct  of  measures,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, by  himself  or  any  other,  from  the  time  when  the  late  Duke  of  Cum- 
berland was  consulted  in  the  arrangement  of  a ministry  in  1765,  to  the 
present  hour.”  — Tomline's  Life  of  Pitt , i.  452,  n.  See  also  Rockingham 
Mem.,  i.  358-360;  Lord  Brougham’s  Sketches  of  Statesmen,  Works , iii.  49; 
Edinb.  Rev.  cxli.  94;  Quart.  Rev.,  cxxxi.  236.  Lord  John  Russell’s  Intro- 
duction to  vol.  iii.  of  Bedford  Correspondence,  xxxiii. 

2 Burke’s  Present  Discontents,  Works,  ii.  254. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


43 


the  ministers,  more  particularly  in  the  disputes  with  the  Amer- 
ican colonies,  which,  in  his  opinion,  involved  the 

1 The  king’s  in- 

rights and  honor  of  his  crown.1  He  was  resolutely  fluence  in 

opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  which  the 
ministers  had  thought  necessary  for  the  conciliation  of  the 
colonies.  He  resisted  this  measure  in  council ; but  finding 
the  ministers  resolved  to  carry  it,  he  opposed  them  in  Par- 
liament by  the  authority  of  his  name,  and  by  his  personal 
influence  over  a considerable  body  of  his  parliamentary 
adherents.2  The  king  affected,  indeed,  to  support  the  min- 
isters, and  to  decline  the  use  of  his  name  in  opposing  them. 
“ Lord  Harcourt  suggested,  at  a distance,  that  his  Majesty 
might  make  his  sentiments  known,  which  might  prevent  the 
repeal  of  the  act,  if  his  ministers  should  push  that  measure. 
The  king  seemed  averse  to  that,  said  he  would  never  in- 
fluence people  in  their  parliamentary  opinions,  and  that  he 
had  promised  to  support  his  ministers.”  3 But,  however  the 
king  may  have  affected  to  deprecate  the  use  of  his  name,  it 
was  unquestionably  used  by  his  friends ; 4 and  while  he  him- 
self admitted  the  unconstitutional  character  of  such  a pro- 
ceeding, it  found  a defender  in  Lord  Mansfield.  In  dis- 
cussing this  matter  with  the  king,  his  lordship  argued  “ that, 
though  it  would  be  unconstitutional  to  endeavor  by  his  Maj- 
esty’s name  to  carry  questions  in  Parliament,  yet  where  the 
lawful  rights  of  the  king  and  Parliament  were  to  be  asserted 
and  maintained,  he  thought  the  making  his  Majesty’s  opinion 
in  support  of  those  rights  to  be  known,  was  fit  and  becom- 
ing.”5 In  order  to  counteract  this  secret  influence,  Lord 
Rockingham  obtained  the  king’s  written  consent  to  the  pass- 
ing of  the  bill.6 

1 The  king  said  his  ministers  “ would  undo  his  people,  in  giving  up  the 
rights  of  his  crown;  that  to  this  he  would  never  consent.”  — Grenville  Pa- 
pers, iii.  370,  371. 

2 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  259,  331,  n.  Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  250,  294. 

3 Mr.  Grenville’s  Diary,  Jan.  31,  1766;  Grenville  Papers,  iii.  353. 

4 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  374;  Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  288;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i. 
277,  292. 

5 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  374. 


3 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  300. 


44 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


The  ministers  had  to  contend  against  another  difficulty, 
which  the  tactics  of  the  court  had  created.  Not  only  were 
they  opposed  by  independent  members  of  the  court  party ; 
but  members  holding  office,  upon  whose  support  ministers 
were  justified  in  relying,  — were  encouraged  to  oppose  them; 
and  retained  their  offices,  while  voting  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Opposition.  The  king,  who  had  punished  with  so  much 
severity  any  opposition  to  measures  which  he  approved,  now 
upheld  and  protected  those  placemen,  who  opposed  the  min- 
isterial measures  to  which  he  himself  objected.  In  vain  the 
ministers  remonstrated  against  their  conduct : the  king  was 
ready  with  excuses  and  promises ; but  his  chosen  band  were 
safe  from  the  indignation  of  the  Government.  Nor  was 
their  opposition  confined  to  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  — 
a subject  on  which  they  might  have  affected  to  entertain  con- 
scientious scruples : but  it  was  vexatiously  continued  against 
the  general  measures  of  the  administration.1  Well  might 
Mr.  Burke  term  this  “ an  opposition  of  a new  and  singular 
character,  — an  opposition  of  placemen  and  pensioners.”  2 
Lord  Rockingham  protested  against  such  a system  while  in 
office ; 3 and  after  his  dismissal,  took  occasion  to  observe  to 
his  Majesty,  that  u when  he  had  the  honor  of  being  in 
his  Majesty’s  service,  the  measures  of  administration  were 
thwarted  and  obstructed  by  men  in  office,  acting  like  a corps ; 
that  he  flattered  himself  it  was  not  entirely  with  his  Maj- 
esty’s inclination,  and  would  assure  him  it  was  very  detri- 
mental to  his  service.” 4 This  system,  to  use  the  words  of 
Mr.  Burke,  tended  “ to  produce  neither  the  security  of  a 
free  Government,  nor  the  energy  of  a monarchy  that  is 
absolute.” 5 

The  king,  meanwhile,  had  resolved  to  overthrow  the 
Rockingham  ministry,  which  was  on  every  account  distaste- 

1 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  259,  331,  n Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  250,  294,  321. 

2 A Short  Account  of  a Late  Short  Administration. 

3 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  322. 

4 Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  53. 

6 Present  Discontents,  Works , ii.  721. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


45 


ful  to  him.  He  disapproved  their  liberal  policy:  he  was 
jealous  of  their  powerful  party,  which  he  desired  to  break 
up  ; and,  above  all,  he  resented  their  independence.  He 
desired  ministers  to  execute  his  will ; and  these  men  and 
their  party  wTere  the  obstacles  to  the  cherished  object  of 
his  ambition. 

At  length,  in  July,  1766,  they  were  ungraciously  dis- 
missed;1 and  his  Majesty  now  expected  from  Duke  of  Graf_ 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Pitt,  an  administration  better  ton’s  “^is- 
suited  to  his  own  views  and  policy.  Mr.  Pitt’s 
greatness  had  naturally  pointed  him  out  as  the  fittest  man 
for  such  a task,  and  there  were  other  circumstances  which 
made  him  personally  acceptable  to  the  king.  Haughty  as 
was  the  demeanor  of  that  distinguished  man  in  the  senate, 
and  among  his  equals,  his  bearing  in  the  royal  presence 
was  humble  and  obsequious.  The  truth  of  Mr.  Burke’s 
well-known  sarcasm,  that  “ the  least  peep  into  that  closet 
intoxicates  him,  and  will  to  the  end  of  his  life,”  2 was  recog- 
nized by  all  his  contemporaries. 3 

A statesman  with  at  least  the  outward  qualities  of  a 
courtier,  was  likely  to  give  the  king  some  repose  after  his 
collisions  with  the  two  last  ministries.  He  now  undertook 
to  form  an  administration  under  the  Duke  of  Grafton,  with 
the  office  of  Privy  Seal,  and  a seat  in  the  Upper  House, 
as  Earl  of  Chatham. 

For  another  reason  also  Lord  Chatham  was  acceptable 

1 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  337. 

2 Letter  to  Lord  Rockingham,  Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  260. 

3 Chase  Price  said,  “that  at  the  levee,  he  ( i . e.  Lord  Chatham)  used  to 
how  so  low,  you  could  see  the  tip  of  his  hooked  nose  between  his  legs.”  — 
Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  83.  He  had  been  in  the  habit  of  kneeling  at  the  bed- 
side of  George  II.,  while  transacting  business.  — WraxaWs  Mem.,  ii.  53. 
That  he  was  ever  true  to  his  character,  is  illustrated  by  the  abject  terms  of 
his  letter  to  the  king  on  resigning  the  office  of  Privy  Seal,  two  years  after- 
wards. “ Under  this  load  of  unhappiness,  I will  not  despair  of  your  Maj- 
esty’s pardon,  while  I supplicate  again  on  my  knees  your  Majesty’s  mercy, 
and  most  humbly  implore  your  Majesty’s  royal  permission  to  resign  that 
high  office.”  14th  October,  1768;  Chatham  Corresp.,  iii.  314. 


46 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


to  the  king.  They  agreed,  though  for  different  reasons, 
Th  k*  ’s  f *n  P°licJ  breaking  up  party  connections, 
forts  to  dis-  This  was  now  the  settled  object  of  the  king, 

solve  parties.  , . . , , . . T 

which  he  pursued  with  unceasing  earnestness.  In 
writing  to  Lord  Chatham,  July  29th,  1766, 1 he  said:  “ I 
know  the  Earl  of  Chatham  will  zealously  give  his  aid  tow- 
ards destroying  all  party  distinctions,  and  restoring  that 
subordination  to  government  which  can  alone  preserve  that 
inestimable  blessing,  liberty,  from  degenerating  into  licen- 
tiousness.” 2 Again,  December  2d,  1766,  he  wrote  to  the 
Earl  of  Chatham : “ To  rout  out  the  present  method  of 
parties  banding  together,  can  only  be  obtained  by  withstand- 
ing their  unjust  demands,  as  well  as  the  engaging  able  men, 
be  their  private  connections  where  they  will.”  3 And  again, 
on  the  25th  June,  1767  : “I  am  thoroughly  resolved  to  en- 
counter any  difficulties  rather  than  yield  to  faction.”  4 

By  this  policy  the  king  hoped  to  further  his  cherished 
scheme  of  increasing  his  own  personal  influence. 

Personal  in-  ~ A 

fluenceofthe  To  overcome  the  Whig  connection,  was  to  bring 
into  office  the  friends  of  Lord  Bute,  and  the  court 
party  who  were  subservient  to  his  views.  Lord  Chatham 
adopted  the  king’s  policy  for  a very  different  purpose.  Though 
in  outward  observances  a courtier,  he  was  a constitutional 
statesman,  opposed  to  government  by  prerogative,  and  court 
influence.  His  career  had  been  due  to  his  own  genius : in- 
dependent of  party,  and  superior  to  it,  he  had  trusted  to  his 
eloquence,  his  statesmanship,  and  popularity.  And  now, 
by  breaking  up  parties,  he  hoped  to  rule  over  them  all. 
His  project,  however,  completely  failed.  Having  offended 
and  exasperated  the  Whigs,  he  found  himself  at  the  head 
of  an  administration  composed  of  the  king’s  friends,  who 
thwarted  him,  and  of  discordant  elements  over  which  he 
had  no  control. 

1 Introduction  to  vol.  iii.  of  Bedford  Corresp.,  xxvii. 

2 Chatham  Corresp.,  iii.  21. 

s Ibid.,  iii.  137.  * Md.,  276. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


47 


He  discovered,  when  it  was  too  late,  that  the  king  had 
been  more  sagacious  than  himself,  — and  that  while  his 
own  power  and  connections  had  crumbled  away,  the  court 
party  had  obtained  a dangerous  ascendency.  Parties  had 
been  broken  up,  and  prerogative  triumphed.  The  leaders 
of  parties  had  been  reduced  to  insignificance,  while  the 
king  directed  public  affairs  according  to  his  own  will,  and 
upon  principles  dangerous  to  public  liberty.  According  to 
Burke,  “ when  he  had  accomplished  his  scheme  of  adminis- 
tration, he  was  no  longer  minister.”  1 To  repair  the  mis- 
chief which  had  been  done,  he  afterwards  sought  an  alliance 
with  the  party  which,  when  in  power,  he  had  alienated  from 
him.  “ Former  little  differences  must  be  forgotten,”  he 
said,  “ when  the  contest  is  pro  aris  et  focisP  2 

Meanwhile,  other  circumstances  contributed  to  increase 
the  influence  of  the  king.  Much  of  Lord  Chatham’s  popu- 
larity had  been  sacrificed  by  the  acceptance  of  a peerage ; 
and  his  personal  influence  was  diminished  by  his  removal 
from  the  House  of  Commons,  where  he  had  been  paramount. 
His  holding  so  obscure  a place  as  that  of  Privy  Seal,  also 
took  much  from  his  weight  as  a minister.  His  melancholy 
prostration  soon  afterwards  increased  the  feebleness  and  dis- 
union of  the  administration.  Though  his  was  its  leading 
mind,  for  months  he  was  incapacitated  from  attending  to 
any  business.  He  even  refused  an  interview  to  the  Duke 
of  Grafton,  the  premier,3  and  to  General  Conway,  though 
commissioned  by  the  king  to  confer  with  him.4  It  is  not 
surprising  that  the  Duke  of  Grafton  should  complain  of 
the  languor  under  which  6i  every  branch  of  the  adminis- 
tration labored  from  his  absence.”  5 Yet  the  king,  writing 
to  Lord  Chatham,  January  28d,  1768,  to  dissuade  him  from 
resigning  the  Privy  Seal,  said:  “ Though  confined  to  your 

1 Speech  on  American  Taxation.  2 Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  143. 

3 Chatham  Corresp.,  iii.  218.  4 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  433. 

5 Letter  to  Lord  Chatham,  8th  February,  1767 ; Chatham  Corresp.,  iii. 

194. 


48 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


house,  your  name  has  been  sufficient  to  enable  my  adminis- 
tration to  proceed.”  1 At  length,  however,  in  October,  1 7 68, 
completely  broken  down,  he  resigned  his  office,  and  with- 
drew from  the  administration.2 

The  absence  of  Lord  Chatham,  and  the  utter  disorganiza- 
tion of  the  ministry,  left  the  king  free  to  exercise  his  own 
influence,  and  to  direct  the  policy  of  the  country,  without 
control.  Had  Lord  Chatham  been  there,  the  ministry  wrould 
have  had  a policy  of  its  owTn  : now  it  had  none,  and  the 
Duke  of  Grafton  and  Lord  North  — partly  from  indolence, 
and  partly  from  facility,  — consented  to  follow  the  stronger 
will  of  their  sovereign.3 

On  his  side,  the  king  took  advantage  of  the  disruption  of 
party  ties,  which  he  had  taken  pains  to  promote.  In  the 
absence  of  distinctive  principles,  and  party  leaders,  members  w 
of  Parliament  were  exposed  to  the  direct  influence  of  the 
Crown.  According  to  Horace  Walpole,  “ everybody  ran  to 
court,  and  voted  for  whatever  the  court  desired.” 4 The 
main  object  of  the  king  in  breaking  up  parties,  had  thus 
been  secured. 

On  the  resignation  of  the  Duke  of  Grafton,  the  king’s 
ascendency  in  the  councils  of  his  ministers  was 

ministry,  further  increased  by  the  accession  of  Lord  North 
1770  • • • J 

to  the  chief  direction  of  public  affairs.  That  min- 
ister, by  principle  a Tory,  and  favorable  to  prerogative,  — 
in  character  indolent  and  good  tempered,  — and  personally 
attached  to  the  king,  — yielded  up  his  own  opinions  and 
judgment  ; and  for  years  consented  to  be  the  passive  instru- 

1 Chatham  Corresp.,  iii.  318. 

2 In  his  letter  to  the  king,  October  14th,  he  said,  “ All  chance  of  recovery- 
will  be  precluded  by  my  continuing  longer  to  hold  the  Privy  Seal.”  — Chat- 
ham Corresp.,  iii.  314. 

So  little  had  Lord  Chatham’s  illness  been  assumed  for  political  purposes, 
as  it  was  frequently  represented,  that  in  August,  1777,  he  gave  Lady  Chat- 
ham a general  letter  of  attorney,  empowering  her  to  transact  all  business 
for  him.  — Chatham  Corresp.,  iii.  282. 

8 Walp.  Mem.,  iii.  62,  67,  n. 

4 Ibid.,  ii.  381,  n.  See  also  ibid.,  iii.  92. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


49 


ment  of  the  royal  will.1  The  persecution  of  Wilkes,  the 
straining  of  parliamentary  privilege,  and  the  coercion  of 
America,  were  the  disastrous  fruits  of  the  court  policy. 
Throughout  this  administration,  the  king  staked  his  personal 
credit  upon  the  success  of  his  measures  ; and  regarded  op- 
position to  his  ministers  as  an  act  of  disloyalty,  and  their 
defeat  as  an  affront  to  himself.2 

In  1770,  Lord  Chatham  stated  in  Parliament,  that  since 
the  king’s  accession  there  had  been  no  original  (i.  e . inde- 
pendent) minister;3  and  examples  abound  of  the  king’s  per- 
sonal participation  in  every  political  event  of  this  period. 

While  the  Opposition  were  struggling  to  reverse  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  House  of  Commons  against  p ^ # 
Wilkes,  and  Lord  Chatham  was  about  to  move  directed  by 
an  address  for  dissolving  Parliament,  the  king’s  the  Kmg' 
resentment  knew  no  bounds.  In  conversations  with  General 
Conway,  at  this  time,  he  declared  he  would  abdicate  his 
crown  rather  than  comply  with  this  address.  “ Yes,”  said 
the  king,  laying  his  hand  on  his  sword,  “ I will  have  recourse 
to  this,  sooner  than  yield  to  a dissolution  of  Parliament.”  4 
And  opinions  have  not  been  wanting,  that  the  king  was  act- 
ually prepared  to  resist  what  he  deemed  an  invasion  of  his 
prerogative,  by  military  force.5 

On  the  26th  February,  1772,  while  the  Boyal  Marriage 
Bill  was  pending  in  the  House  of  Lords,  the  king  thus  wrote 
to  Lord  North  : “ I expect  every  nerve  to  be  strained  to 
carry  the  bill.  It  is  not  a question  relating  to  administra- 
tion, but  personally  to  myself,  therefore  I have  a right  to 

1 Walp.  Mem.,  ii.  95,  n. ; ib .,  iii.  106,  n. ; Wraxall’s  Mem.,  i.  123. 

Mr.  Massey  says,  Lord  North  was  “ the  only  man  of  parliamentary  repu- 
tation who  would  not  have  insisted  ” on  the  expulsion  of  the  king’s  friends. 
— Hist.,  i.  424.  Always  in  favor  of  power  and  authority,  “ he  supported 
the  king  against  the  aristocracy,  the  Parliament  against  the  people,  and  the 
nation  against  the  colonies.”  — Ibid.,  425. 

2 Walp.  Mem.,  iii.  200  and  n. ; iv.  75. 

8 Ibid.,  iv.  94;  Hansard’s  Pari.  Hist.,  xvi.  842  (March  2d,  1770). 

4 14th  May,  1770.  Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  179. 

6 Massey,  Hist.,  i.  p.  489. 

VOL.  i.  4 


50 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


expect  a hearty  support  from  every  one  in  my  service,  and  1 
shall  remember  defaulters .” 1 Again,  on  the  14th  March, 
1772,  he  wrote : “ I wish  a list  could  be  prepared  of  those 
that  went  away,  and  of  those  that  deserted  to  the  minority 
(on  division  in  the  committee).  That  would  be  a rule  for 
my  conduct  in  the  drawing-room  to-morrow.”  2 Again,  in 
another  letter,  he  said : “ I am  greatly  incensed  at  the  pre- 
sumption of  Charles  Fox,  in  forcing  you  to  vote  with  him 
last  night.”  3 . . . . “ I hope  you  will  let  him  know  that 
you  are  not  insensible  of  his  conduct  towards  you.”  4 And 
the  king’s  confidence  in  his  own  influence  over  the  delibera- 
tions of  Parliament,  appears  from  another  letter,  on  the  26th 
June,  1774,  where  he  said : “ I hope  the  Crown  will  always 
be  able,  in  either  House  of  Parliament,  to  throw  out  a bill; 
but  I shall  never  consent  to  use  any  expression  which  tends  * 
to  establish,  that  at  no  time  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  dis- 
sent is  to  be  used.”  5 

The  king  not  only  watched  how  members  spoke  and 
voted,6  or  whether  they  abstained  from  voting ; 7 but  even 
if  they  were  silent,  when  he  had  expected  them  to  speak.8 
No  “ whipper-in  ” from  the  Treasury  could  have  been  more 
keen  or  full  of  expedients,  in  influencing  the  votes  of  mem- 
bers in  critical  divisions.9  He  was  ready,  also,  to  take  ad- 

1 Fox  Mem.,  i.  76;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  79. 

2 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  80. 

3 15th  February,  1774.  In  proceedings  against  printers  of  a libel  on  the 
speaker,  Sir  F.  Norton. 

4 Fox  Mem.,  i.  99 ; Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  84. 

6 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  85. 

6 King  to  Lord  North,  5th  April,  1770;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  71, 
88,  106,  108. 

7 King  to  Lord  North,  12th  March,  1772 ; 6th  April,  25th  Oct.,  1778 ; 28th 
Feb.,  4th  and  9th  March,  1779. 

3 King  to  Lord  North,  7th  Jan.,  1770.  “ Surprised  that  T.  Townsend  was 
silent.”  — King  to  Lord  North,  19th  Dec.,  1772.  Ibid.,  81.  “I  should 
think  Lord  G.  Germaine  might  with  great  propriety  have  said  a few  words 
to  put  the  defence  in  motion.”  — King  to  Lord  North,  2d  Feb.,  1778.  Lord 
Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  105.  He  was  incensed  against  Dundas  for  the 
same  reason,  24th  Feb.,  1778.  — Ibid.,  106. 

9 King  to  Lord  North,  9th  Feb.,  1775;  5th  and  9th  March,  1779. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


51 


vantage  of  the  absence  of  opponents.  Hearing  that  Mr. 
Fox  was  going  to  Paris,  he  wrote  to  Lord  North,  15  th  No- 
vember, 1776  : “ Bring  as  much  forward  as  you  can  before 
the  recess,  as  real  business  is  never  so  well  considered  as 
when  the  attention  of  the  House  is  not  taken  up  with  noisy 
declamation.”  1 

Military  officers  were  still  exposed  to  marks  of  the  king’s 
displeasure.  In  1773,  Lieutenant-Colonel  Barre  Dismissalof 
and  Sir  Hugh  Williams,  both  refractory  members  officers* 
of  Parliament,  were  passed  over  in  a brevet,  or  promotion  ; 
and  Colonel  Barre,  in  order  to  mark  his  sense  of  the  injus- 
tice of  this  act  of  power,  resigned  his  commission  in  the 
army.2  The  king,  however,  appears  to  have  modified  his 
opinions  as  to  his  right  of  depriving  members  of  military 
commands,  on  account  of  their  conduct  in  Parliament. 
Writing  to  Lord  North,  5th  March,  1779,  he  says:  “I  am 
strongly  of  opinion  that  the  general  officers,  who  through 
Parliament  have  got  governments,  should,  on  opposing,  lose 
them.  This  is  very  different  from  removing  them  from  their 
military  commands.”  3 

Not  without  many  affronts,  and  much  unpopularity,  the 
king  and  his  minister  long  triumphed  over  all  op-  ^ 
position  in  Parliament;4  but  in  1778,  the  signal  identifies 
failure  of  their  policy,  the  crisis  m American  af-  Lord  North’s 
fairs,  and  the  impending  war  with  France,  obliged  mimstry’ 
them  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  Lord  Chatham,  for  the 
admission  of  that  statesman  and  some  of  the  leaders  of  Op- 
position into  the  ministry.  The  king  needed  their  assistance, 
but  was  resolved  not  to  adopt  their  policy.  He  would  accept 
them  as  instruments  of  his  own  will,  but  not  as  responsible 
ministers.  If  their  counsels  should  prevail,  he  would  him- 
self be  humiliated  and  disgraced. 

In  a letter  to  Lord  North,  15th  March,  1778,  the  king 
says:  “Honestly,  I would  rather  lose  the  crown  I now 
wear,  than  bear  the  ignominy  of  possessing  it  under  their 

1 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  97.  3 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  130. 

2 Chatham  Corresp.,  iv.  243,  251.  * Fox  Mem.,  i.  115, 119. 


52 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


shackles.”  1 And,  again,  on  the  17th  of  March,  he  writes  : 
“ I am  still  ready  to  accept  any  part  of  them  that  will  come 
to  the  assistance  of  my  present  efficient  ministers  : but,  whilst 
any  ten  men  in  the  kingdom  will  stand  by  me,  I will  not  give 
myself  up  to  bondage.  My  dear  Lord,  I will  rather  risk 
my  crown  than  do  what  I think  personally  disgraceful.  It 
is  impossible  this  nation  should  not  stand  by  me.  If  they 
will  not,  they  shall  have  another  king,  for  I never  will  put 
my  hand  to  what  will  make  me  miserable  to  the  last  hour  of 
my  life.”  2 Again,  on  the  18th,  he  writes : “ Rather  than  be 
shackled  by  those  desperate  men  (if  the  nation  will  not  stand 
by  me),  I will  rather  see  any  form  of  government  introduced 
into  this  island,  and  lose  my  crown,  rather  than  wear  it  as  a 
disgrace.”3  The  failure  of  these  negotiations,  followed  by 
the  death  of  Lord  Chatham,  left  unchanged  the  unfortunate 
administration  of  Lord  North. 

Overtures,  indeed,  were  made  to  the  Whig  leaders,  to  join 
a new  ministry  under  Lord  Weymouth,  which 

Th.0  king  ©n*  ^ * 

forces  his  own  were,  perhaps  unwisely,  declined  ; 4 and  hence- 
pohcy.  forth  the  king  was  resolved  to  admit  none  to  his 
councils  without  exacting  a pledge  of  compliance  with  his 
wishes.  Thus,  on  the  4th  February,  1779,  writing  to  Lord 
North,  he  says  : “ You  may  now  sound  Lord  Howe  ; but, 
before  I name  him  to  preside  at  the  Admiralty  Board,  I must 
expect  an  explicit  declaration  that  he  will  zealously  concur 
in  prosecuting  the  war  in  all  the  quarters  of  the  globe.” 5 
Again,  on  the  22d  June,  1779,  he  writes:  “Before  I will 
hear  of  any  man’s  readiness  to  come  into  office,  I will  expect 
to  see  it  signed  under  his  own  hand,  that  he  is  resolved  to 
keep  the  empire  entire,  and  that  no  troops  shall  consequently 
be  withdrawn  from  thence  (i.  e.  America),  nor  independence 
ever  allowed.”  6 

1 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  108;  Fox  Mem.,  i.  189. 

2 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  110;  Fox  Mem.,  i.  191. 

8 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  Ill;  Fox  Mem.,  i.  193. 

4 Fox  Mem.,  i.  207 ; Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  of  Fox,  i.  193. 

5 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  127 ; Fox  Mem.,  i.  211,  212. 

6 Ibid.,  236. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


53 


At  this  time  it  was  openly  avowed  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons by  Lord  George  Germaine,  that  the  king  was  his  own 
minister,  and  Mr.  Fox  lamented  “ that  his  Majesty  was  his 
own  unadvised  minister.”  1 Nor  was  it  unnatural  that  the 
king  should  expect  such  submission  from  other  statesmen, 
when  his  first  minister  was  carrying  out  a policy  of  which 
he  disapproved,  but  wanted  resolution  to  resist,2  — - and  when 
Parliament  had  hitherto  supported  his  ill-omened  measures. 
In  October,  1779,  Lord  North,  writing  to  the  king  concern- 
ing the  resignation  of  Lord  Gower,  who  was  averse  to  the 
continuance  of  the  American  war,  which,  in  his  opinion, 
“ must  end  in  ruin  to  his  Majesty  and  the  country,”  says : 
u In  the  argument  Lord  North  had  certainly  one  disadvan- 
tage, which  is  that  he  held  in  his  heart,  and  has  held  for 
three  years  past,  the  same  opinion  as  Lord  Gower.”  3 

Again,  however,  the  king  was  reduced  to  treat  with  the 
Opposition ; but  was  not  less  resolute  in  his  deter-  ^ 

. p Is  forced  to 

mination  that  no  change  of  ministers  should  affect  treat  with  the 

the  policy  of  his  measures.  On  December  3d,  Oppositlon' 
1779,  he  was  prevailed  upon  to  give  Lord  Thurlow  authority 
to  open  a negotiation  with  the  leaders  of  the  Opposition,  and 
expressed  his  willingness  “ to  admit  into  his  confidence  and 
service  any  men  of  public  spirit  and  talents,  who  will  join 
with  part  of  the  present  ministry  in  forming  one  on  a more 
enlarged  scale,  provided  it  be  understood  that  every  means 
are  to  be  employed  to  keep  the  empire  entire,  to  prosecute 
the  present  just  and  unprovoked  war  in  all  its  branches,  with 
the  utmost  vigor,  and  that  his  Majesty’s  past  measures  be 
treated  with  proper  respect.”  4 Finding  the  compliance  of 
independent  statesmen  less  ready  than  he  desired,  he  writes 
to  Lord  Thurlow,  18th  December,  1779:  “ From  the  cold 
disdain  with  which  I am  treated,  it  is  evident  to  me  what 

1 Dec.  4th,  1778, on  Mr.  Coke’s  motion  upon  Clinton’s  proclamation;  Fox 
Mem.,  i.  203. 

2 Fox  Mem.,  i.  211,  212. 

3 King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  151. 

4 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  139;  Fox  Mem.,  i.  237. 


54 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


treatment  I am  to  expect  from  Opposition,  if  I was  to  call 
them  into  my  service.  To  obtain  their  support,  I must  de- 
liver up  my  person,  my  principles,  and  my  dominions  into 
their  hands.”  1 In  other  words,  the  king  dreaded  the  ad- 
mission of  any  ministers  to  his  councils,  who  claimed  an  in- 
dependent judgment  upon  the  policy  for  which  they  would 
become  responsible. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  increasing  influence  of  the  Crown, 
and  the  active  personal  exercise  of  its  preroga- 

Protests  m . _ 

against  the  tives,  were  attracting  the  attention  of  the  people 
the  Crown,  and  of  Parliament.  In  the  debate  on  the  address 
i7<9-8°.  at  tjie  0penjng  0f  Parliament,  25th  November, 
1779,  Mr.  Fox  said:  “He  saw  very  early  indeed,  in  the 
present  reign,  the  plan  of  government  which  had  been  laid 
down,  and  had  since  been  invariably  pursued  in  every  de- 
partment. It  was  not  the  mere  rumor  of  the  streets  that 
the  king  was  his  own  minister ; the  fatal  truth  was  evident, 
and  had  made  itself  evident  in  every  circumstance  of  the 
war  carried  on  against  America  and  the  West  Indies.”  2 
This  was  denied  by  ministers ; 3 but  evidence,  not  accessible 
to  contemporaries,  has  since  made  his  statement  indisputable. 

Early  in  the  following  year,  numerous  public  meetings 
were  held,  associations  formed,  and  petitions  presented  in 
favor  of  economic  reforms ; and  complaining  of  the  undue 
influence  of  the  Crown,  and  of  the  patronage  and  corruption 
by  which  it  was  maintained.4  It  was  for  the  redress  of  these 
grievances  that  Mr.  Burke  offered  his  celebrated  scheme  of 
economical  reform.  He  confessed  that  the  main  object  of 
this  scheme  was  “the  reduction  of  that  corrupt  influence, 
which  is  itself  the  perennial  spring  of  all  prodigality  and  of 
all  disorder;  — which  loads  us  more  than  millions  of  debt; 
which  takes  away  vigor  from  our  arms,  wisdom  from  our 

1 Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  140;  Fox  Mem.,  i.  238. 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xx.  1120. 

3 See  the  speeches  of  the  Lord  Advocate,  the  Secretary-at-W  ar,  and  At- 
torney-General, ibid.,  1130,  1138,  1140. 

4 Pari.  Hist.,  xx.  1370;  Ann.  Reg.,  xxiii.  85. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


55 


councils,  and  every  shadow  of  authority  and  credit  from  the 
most  venerable  parts  of  our  constitution.”  1 

On  the  6th  April,  Mr.  Dunning  moved  resolutions,  in  a 
committee  of  the  whole  House,  founded  upon  these  Mr  Dun 
petitions.  The  first,  which  is  memorable  in  politi-  n^gjs  resohi- 
cal  history,  affirmed  “ that  the  influence  of  the 
Crown  has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be  dimin- 
ished.” 2 The  Lord  Advocate  (Mr.  Dundas)  endeavored  to 
diminish  the  force  of  this  resolution  by  the  prefatory  words, 
“ that  it  is  necessary  to  declare ;”  but  Mr.  Fox,  on  behalf  of 
the  Opposition,  at  once  assented  to  this  amendment,  and  the 
resolution  was  carried  by  a majority  of  eighteen.  A second 
resolution  was  agreed  to  without  a division,  affirming  the 
right  of  the  House  to  correct  abuses  in  the  civil  list  expen- 
diture, and  every  other  branch  of  the  public  revenue  ; and 
also  a third,  affirming  “ that  it  is  the  duty  of  this  House  to 
provide,  as  far  as  may  be,  an  immediate  and  effectual  redress 
of  the  abuses  complained  of  in  the  petitions  presented  to  this 
House.”  The  Opposition,  finding  themselves  in  a majority, 
pushed  forward  their  success.  They  would  consent  to  no 
delay ; and  these  resolutions  were  immediately  reported  and 
agreed  to  by  the  House.  This  debate  was  signalized  by  the 
opposition  speech  of  Sir  Fletcher  Norton,  the  Speaker,  who 
bore  his  personal  testimony  to  the  increased  and  increasing 
influence  of  the  Crown.3  The  king,  writing  to  Lord  North 
on  the  11th  April  concerning  these  obnoxious  resolutions, 
said : “ I wish  I did  not  feel  at  whom  they  were  personally 
levelled.”  4 

The  same  matters  were  also  debated,  in  this  session,  in 
the  House  of  Lords.  The  debate  on  the  Earl  of  Lord  ghel_ 
Shelburne’s  motion,  February  8th,  for  an  inquiry  tio^onpubiic 
into  the  public  expenditure,  brought  out  further  expenditure. 

1 Feb.  11th,  1780;  Pari.  Hist.,  xxi.  2 (published  speech). 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xxi.  339. 

3 See  also  Chapter  IY.  (Civil  List),  and  Chapter  YI.  (House  of  Com- 
mons). 

4 King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  144. 


56 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


testimonies  to  the  influence  of  the  Crown.  Of  these  the 
most  remarkable  was  given  by  the  Marquess  of  Rocking- 
ham ; who  asserted  that  since  the  accession  of  the  king,  there 
had  been  “ a fixed  determination  to  govern  this  country  un- 
der the  forms  of  law,  through  the  influence  of  the  Crown.” 
“ Everything  within  and  without,  whether  in  cabinet,  Parlia- 
ment, or  elsewhere,  earned  about  it  the  most  unequivocal 
marks  of  such  a system : the  whole  economy  of  executive 
government,  in  all  its  branches,  proclaimed  it,  whether  pro- 
fessional, deliberative,  or  official.  The  supporters  of  it  in 
books,  pamphlets,  and  newspapers,  avowed  it  and  defended 
it  without  reserve.  It  was  early  in  the  present  reign  pro- 
mulged  as  a court  axiom,  4 that  the  power  and  influence  of 
the  Crown  alone  was  sufficient  to  support  any  set  of  men  his 
Majesty  might  think  proper  to  call  to  his  councils/  The 
fact  bore  evidence  of  its  truth  ; for  through  the  influence  of 
the  Crown,  majorities  had  been  procured  to  support  any  men 
or  any  measures,  which  an  administration,  thus  constituted, 
thought  proper  to  dictate.” 1 

This  very  motion  afforded  an  occasion  for  the  exercise 
intimidation  of  the  prerogative  in  an  arbitrary  and  offensive 
of  peers.  manner,  in  order  to  influence  the  votes  of  peers, 
and  to  intimidate  opponents.  The  Marquess  of  Caremarthen 
and  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  had  resigned  their  offices  in  the 
household,  in  order  to  give  an  independent  vote.  Before 
the  former  had  voted,  he  received  notice  that  he  was  dis- 
missed from  the  lord  lieutenancy  of  the  East  Riding  of  the 
county  of  York  ; 2 and  soon  after  the  latter  had  recorded  his 
vote,  he  was  dismissed  from  the  lord  lieutenancy  of  Wilt- 
shire, — an  office  which  had  been  held  by  his  family,  at 
different  times,  for  centuries.3  This  flagrant  exercise  of 
prerogative  could  not  escape  the  notice  of  Parliament,  and 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xx.  1346. 

2 Ibid. , 1340. 

8 His  dismissal  was  by  the  personal  orders  of  the  king,  who  wrote  to  Lord 
North,  10th  Feb.,  1780:  “I  cannot  choose  the  lieutenancy  of  Wiltshire 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  Opposition.” 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


57 


on  the  6 th  March,  Lord  Shelburne  moved  an  address  pray- 
ing the  king  to  acquaint  the  House  whether  he  had  been 
advised,  and  by  whom,  to  dismiss  these  peers  “ from  their 
employments,  for  their  conduct  in  Parliament.”  The  mo- 
tion was  negatived  by  a large  majority  ; but  the  unconstitu- 
tional acts  of  the  king  were  strongly  condemned  in  debate  ; 
and  again  animadversions  were  made  upon  the  influence  of 
the  Crown,  more  especially  in  the  administration  of  the 
army  and  militia.1 

On  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  on  the  27th  November, 
1781,  amendments  were  moved  in  both  Houses,  in  complaints  of 
answer  to  the  king’s  speech,  which  gave  occasion  ^ th^crown6 
to  the  expression  of  strong  opinions  regarding  the  178L 
influence  of  the  Crown,  and  the  irregular  and  irresponsible 
system  under  which  the  government  of  the  country  was  con- 
ducted. The  Duke  of  Richmond  said,  “ that  the  country 
was  governed  by  clerks,  — each  minister  confining  himself 
to  his  own  office,  — and  consequently,  instead  of  responsi- 
bility, union  of  opinion,  and  concerted  measures,  nothing 
was  displayed  but  dissension,  weakness,  and  corruption.” 
The  66  interior  cabinet,”  he  declared,  had  been  the  ruin  of 
this  country.2  The  Marquess  of  Rockingham  described  the 
system  of  government  pursued  since  the  commencement  of 
the  reign  as  “ a proscriptive  system,  — a system  of  favoritism 
and  secret  influence.”3  Mr.  Fox  imputed  all  the  defeats 
and  disasters  of  the  American  War  to  the  influence  of  the 
Crown.4 

The  king  was  never  diverted  by  defeat  and  disaster  from 
his  resolution  to  maintain  the  war  with  America : Final  over_ 
but  the  House  of  Commons  was  now  determined  tbiw  ofLord 

North’s  min- 

upon  peace ; and  a struggle  ensued  which  was  to  istry- 
decide  the  fate  of  the  minister,  and  to  overcome,  by  the 
power  of  Parliament,  the  stubborn  will  of  the  king.  On  the 
22d  February,  1782,  General  Conway  moved  an  address 


1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxi.  218 

2 Ibid.,  xxii.  651. 


3 Ibid.,  655. 

4 Ibid.,  706. 


58 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


deprecating  the  continuance  of  the  war,  but  was  defeated  by 
a majority  of  one.1  On  the  27th,  he  proposed  another 
address  with  the  same  object.  Lord  North  begged  for  a 
short  respite  : but  an  adjournment  being  refused  by  a ma- 
jority of  nineteen,  the  motion  was  agreed  to  without  a 
division.2 

On  the  receipt  of  the  king’s  answer,  General  Conway 
moved  a resolution  that  u the  House  will  consider  as  ene- 
mies to  the  king  and  country  all  who  shall  advise,  or  by 
any  means  attempt,  the  further  prosecution  of  offensive 
war,  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  the  revolted  colonies  to 
obedience  by  force.” 3 In  reply  to  this  proposal,  Lord 
North  astonished  the  House  by  announcing,  — not  that  he 
proposed  to  resign  on  the  reversal  of  the  policy,  to  which 
he  was  pledged,  — but  that  he  was  prepared  to  give  effect 
to  the  instructions  of  the  Hquse ! Mr.  Fox  repudiated  the 
principle  of  a minister  remaining  in  office,  to  carry  out  the 
policy  of  his  opponents,  against  his  own  judgment ; and 
General  Conway’s  resolution  was  agreed  to.  Lord  North, 
however,  persevered  with  his  propositions  for  peace,  and 
declared  his  determination  to  retain  office  until  the  king 
should  command  him  to  resign,  or  the  House  should  point 
out  to  him,  in  the  clearest  manner,  the  propriety  of  with- 
drawing.4 No  time  was  lost  in  pressing  him  with  the  latter 
alternative.  On  the  8th  March,  a motion  of  Lord  John  Cav- 
endish, charging  all  the  misfortunes  of  the  war  upon  the  im- 
competency  of  the  ministers,  was  lost  by  a majority  of  ten.5 
On  the  15th,  Sir  J.  Rous  moved  that  “ the  House  could  no 
longer  repose  confidence  in  the  present  ministers,”  and  his 
motion  was  negatived  by  a majority  of  nine.6  On  the  20th 
the  assault  was  about  to  be  repeated,  when  Lord  North 
announced  his  resignation.7 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxii.  1028. 

2 Ibid.,  1064. 

3 4th  March.  Ibid.,  1067. 

4 Ibid.,  1107. 


6 Pari.  Hist.,  xxii.  1114. 

6 Ibid.,  1170. 

7 Ibid.,  1214. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CKOWN. 


59 


The  king  had  watched  this  struggle  with  great  anxiety,  as 
one  personal  to  himself.  Writing  to  Lord  North  The  king’s 
on  the  17th  March,  after  the  motion  of  Sir  J.  the^ fate  of  his 
Rous,  he  said : “ I am  resolved  not  to  throw  my-  mimsters- 
self  into  the  hands  of  the  Opposition  at  all  events  ; and  shall 
certainly,  if  things  go  as  they  seem  to  tend,  know  what  my 
conscience  as  well  as  honor  dictates,  as  the  only  way  left  for 
me.”  1 He  even  desired  the  royal  yacht  to  be  prepared,  and 
talked  as  if  nothing  were  now  left  for  him  but  to  retire  to 
Hanover.2  But  it  had  become  impossible  to  retain  any 
longer  in  his  service  that  u confidential  minister,”  whom  he 
had  “always  treated  more  as  his  friend  than  minister.”3 
By  the  earnest  solicitations  of  the  king,4  Lord  North  had 
been  induced  to  retain  office  against  his  own  wishes : he  had 
persisted  in  a policy  of  which  he  disapproved ; and  when 
forced  to  abandon  it,  he  still  held  his  ground,  in  order  to 
protect  the  king  from  the  intrusion  of  those  whom  his  Maj- 
esty regarded  as  personal  enemies.5  He  was  now  fairly 
driven  from  his  post,  and  the  king  appreciating  the  personal 
devotion  of  his  minister,  rewarded  his  zeal  and  fidelity  with 
a munificent  present  from  the  privy  purse.6 

The  king’s  correspondence  with  Lord  North7  gives  us  a 
remarkable  insight  into  the  relations  of  his  Majesty  with 
that  minister,  and  with  the  government  of  the  country.  Not 
only  did  he  direct  the  minister  in  all  important  matters  of 

1 Fox  Mem.,  i.  288 ; King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North. 

2 Fox  Mem.,  i.  287  (Lord  Holland’s  text). 

3 King  to  Lord  North,  2d  June,  1778. 

4 King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North,  31st  Jan.,  17th,  22d,  23d,  29th  and  30th 
March,  8th  April,  May  6th,  29th,  &c.,  1778;  30th  Nov.,  1779;  19th  May, 
1780;  19th  March,  1782. 

s On  the  19th  March,  1782,  the  very  day  before  he  announced  his  inten- 
tion to  resign,  the  king  wrote : “ If  you  resign  before  I have  decided  what 
to  do,  you  will  certainly  forever  forfeit  my  regard.” 

6 The  king,  in  his  letter  to  Lord  North,  says:  “Allow  me  to  assist  you 
with  10,000/.,  15,000/.,  or  even  20,000/.,  if  that  will  be  sufficient.”  — Lord 
Brougham's  Life  of  George  III. ; Works , iii.  18.  Mr.  Adolphus  states, 
from  private  information,  that  the  present  amounted  to  30,000/. 

7 Appendix  to  Lord  Brougham’s  Life  of  Lord  North;  Works,  iii.  67. 


60 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


foreign  and  domestic  policy ; but  he  instructed  him  as  to  the 
The  king’s  in  management  of  debates  in  Parliament,  suggested 
flnence  dur-  what  motions  should  be  made  or  opposed,  and 
North’s  min-  how  measures  should  be  carried.  He  reserved  to 
istry.  himself  all  the  patronage,  — he  arranged  the  entire 
cast  of  the  administration,  — settled  the  relative  places  and 
pretensions  of  ministers  of  state,  of  law  officers,  and  mem- 
bers of  his  household, — nominated  and  promoted  the  English 
and  Scotch  judges,  — appointed  and  translated  bishops,  nom- 
inated deans,  and  dispensed  other  preferments  in  the  Church.1 
He  disposed  of  military  governments,  regiments,  and  com- 
missions ; and  himself  ordered  the  marching  of  troops.2  He 
gave  or  refused  titles,  honors,  and  pensions.3  All  his  di- 
rections were  peremptory : Louis  the  Great  himself  could 
not  have  been  more  royal : — he  enjoyed  the  consciousness 
of  power,  and  felt  himself 66  every  inch  a king.” 

But  what  had  been  the  result  of  twenty  years  ofking- 
Kesuits  of  the  craft  ? Whenever  the  king’s  personal  influence 
king’s  policy,  ^een  ^he  greatest,  there  had  been  the  fiercest 
turbulence  and  discontent  amongst  the  people,  the  most  sig- 
nal failures  in  the  measures  of  the  Government,  and  the 
heaviest  disasters  to  the  State.  Of  all  the  evil  days  of  Eng- 
land during  this  king’s  long  reign,  the  worst  are  recollected  in 
the  ministries  of  Lord  Bute,  Mr.  Grenville,  the  Duke  of 
Grafton,  and  Lord  North.  Nor  had  the  royal  will,  — how- 
ever potential  with  ministers,  — prevailed  in  the  government 
of  the  country.  He  had  been  thwarted  and  humbled  by  his 
parliaments,  and  insulted  by  demagogues : parliamentary 
privilege,  which  he  had  sought  to  uphold  as  boldly  as  his 
own  prerogative,  had  been  defied  and  overcome  by  Wilkes 
and  the  printers : the  liberty  of  the  press,  which  he  would 

1 Much  to  his  credit,  he  secured  the  appointment  of  the  poet  Gray  to  the 
professorship  of  Modern  History  at  Cambridge,  8th  March,  1771. 

2 25th  October,  1775:  “ On  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  I have  ordered  El- 
liott’s dragoons  to  march  from  Henley  to  Hounslow.” 

3 “ We  must  husband  honors,”  wrote  the  king  to  Lord  North  on  the  18th 
July,  1777,  on  refusing  to  make  Sir  W.  Hamilton  a privy-councillor. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


61 


have  restrained,  had  been  provoked  into  licentiousness ; and 
his  kingdom  had  been  shorn  of  some  of  its  fairest  provinces. 

On  the  retirement  of  Lord  North,  the  king  submitted, 
with  a bad  grace,  to  the  Rockingham  administra-  Rockingham 
tion.  He  found  places,  indeed,  for  his  own  ^2istry’ 
friends  : but  the  policy  of  the  cabinet  was  as  dis- 
tasteful to  him  as  were  the  persons  of  some  of  the  states- 
men of  whom  it  was  composed.  Its  first  principle  was  the 
concession  of  independence  to  America,  which  he  had  so 
long  resisted ; the  second  was  the  reduction  of  the  influence 
of  the  Crown,  by  the  abolition  of  offices,  the  exclusion  of 
contractors  from  Parliament,  and  the  disfranchisement  of 
revenue  officers.1  Shortly  after  its  formation,  Mr.  Fox, 
writing  to  Mr.  Fitzpatrick  (28th  April,  1782),  said:  “ Pro- 
vided we  can  stay  in  long  enough  to  give  a good  stout  blow 
to  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  I do  not  think  it  much  signi- 
fies how  soon  we  go  out  after.”  2 This  ministry  wTas  consti- 
tuted of  materials  not  likely  to  unite,  — of  men  who  had 
supported  the  late  ministry,  and  of  the  leaders  of  the  parlia- 
mentary opposition,  — or,  as  Mr.  Fox  expressed  it,  “ it 
consisted  of  two  parts,  one  belonging  to  the  king,  the  other 
to  the  public.”  3 Such  men  could  not  be  expected  to  act 
cordially  together ; but  they  aimed  their  blow  at  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Crown  by  passing  the  Contractors’  Bill,  the 
Revenue  Officers’  Bill,  and  a bill  for  the  reduction  of 
offices.4  They  also  suffered  the  former  policy  of  the  court 
to  be  stigmatized,  by  expunging  from  the  journals  of. the 
House  of  Commons,  the  obnoxious  resolutions  which  had 
affirmed  the  disability  of  Wilkes.  A ministry  promoting 
such  measures  as  these,  was  naturally  viewed  with  distrust 
and  ill-will  by  the  court.  So  hard  was  the  struggle  between 
them,  that  the  surly  Chancellor,  Lord  Thurlow,  — who  had 
retained  his  office  by  the  express  desire  of  the  king,  and 
voted  against  all  the  measures  of  the  government,  — af- 


1 Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  452. 

2 Fox  Mem.,  i.  317. 


3 Fox  Mem.,  i.  292. 

4 See  Chapter  VI. 


62 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


firmed  that  Lord  Rockingham  was  “bringing  things  to  a 
pass  where  either  his  head  or  the  king’s  must  go,  in  order 
to  settle  which  of  them  is  to  govern  the  country.”1  The 
king  was  described  by  his  Tory  friends  as  a prisoner  in  the 
hands  of  his  ministers,  and  represented  in  the  caricatures  of 
the  day,  as  being  put  in  fetters  by  his  jailers.2  In  the  same 
spirit  the  ministers  were  termed  the  “ Regency,”  as  if  they 
had  assumed  to  exercise  the  royal  authority.  In  a few 
months,  however,  this  ministry  was  on  the  point  of  breaking 
up,  in  consequence  of  differences  of  opinion  and  personal 
jealousies,  when  the  death  of  Lord  Rockingham  dissolved 
it. 

Mr.  Fox  and  his  friends  retired,  and  Lord  Shelburne, 
Lord  shei-  who  had  represented  the  king  in  the  late  cabinet, 
istry.e  SisTm"  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  new  administration  ; 
July,  1782.  while  Mr.  William  Pitt  now  first  entered  office, 
though  little  more  than  twenty-three  years  of  age,  as  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer.3  The  secession  of  the  popular 
party  restored  the  king’s  confidence  in  his  ministers,  who 
now  attempted  to  govern  by  his  influence,  and  to  maintain 
their  position  against  a formidable  combination  of  parties. 
Horace  Walpole  represents  Lord  Shelburne  as  “ trusting  to 
maintain  himself  entirely  by  the  king  ; ” 4 and  such  was  the 
state  of  parties  that,  in  truth,  he  had  little  else  to  rely  upon. 
In  avowing  this  influence,  he  artfully  defended  it,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  king’s  friends,  by  retorting  upon  the  great  Whig 
families.  He  would  never  consent,  he  said,  “ that  the  King 
of  England  should  be  a King  of  the  Mahrattas ; for  among 
the  Mahrattas  the  custom  is,  it  seems,  for  a certain  number 
of  great  lords  to  elect  a Peishwah,  who  is  thus  the  creature 
of  the  aristocracy,  and  is  vested  with  the  plenitude  of  pow- 
er, while  their  king  is,  in  fact,  nothing  more  than  a royal 
pageant.” 6 


1 Fox  Mem.,  i.  294. 

2 Rockingham  Mem.,  ii.  466. 

8 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  86. 


4 Fox  Mem.,  ii.  11. 

8 Pari.  Hist.,  xxii.  1003. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


63 


By  breaking  up  parties,  the  king  had  hoped  to  secure  his 
independence  and  to  enlarge  his  influence  ; but  combination 
now  he  was  startled  by  a result  which  he  had  not  ^SnstThe 
anticipated.  “ Divide  et  imjpera  ” had  been  his  kmg' 
maxim,  and  to  a certain  extent  it  had  succeeded.  Separa- 
tion of  parties  had  enfeebled  their  opposition  to  his  govern- 
ment ; but  now  their  sudden  combination  overthrew  it. 
When  the  preliminary  articles  of  peace  with  America  were 
laid  before  Parliament,  the  parties  of  Lord  North  and  Mr. 
Fox,  — so  long  opposed  to  each  other,  and  whose  «The  Coali_ 
political  hostility  had  been  imbittered  by  the  tl0n'” 
most  acrimonious  disputes,  — formed  a “ Coalition,”  and 
outvoted  the  Government  in  the  House  of  Com-  17th  and  2ist 
mons.1  Overborne  by  numbers,  the  minister  re-  Feb’5 1783, 
signed ; and  the  king  alone  confronted  this  powerful  Coali- 
tion. The  struggle  which  ensued  was  one  of  the  most 
critical  in  our  modern  constitutional  history.  The  preroga- 
tives of  the  Crown  on  the  one  side,  and  the  powers  of 
Parliament  on  the  other,  were  more  strained  than  at  any 
time  since  the  Revolution.  But  the  strong  will  of  the  king, 
and  the  courage  and  address  of  his  youthful  councillor,  Mr. 
Pitt,  prevailed.  They  carried  the  people  with  them ; and 
the  ascendency  of  the  Crown  was  established  for  many 
years,  to  an  extent  which  even  the  king  himself  could 
scarcely  have  ventured  to  hope. 

The  leaders  of  the  Coalition  naturally  expected  to  suc- 
ceed to  power  ; but  the  king  wras  resolved  to  resist  their 
pretensiorjs.  He  sought  Mr.  Pitt’s  assistance  to  form  a 
government,  and  with  such  a minister  would  have  braved 
the  united  forces  of  the  Opposition.  But  that  sagacious 
statesman,  though  not  yet  twenty-four  years  of  age,2  had 
taken  an  accurate  survey  of  the  state  of  parties,  and  of 
public  opinion  ; and  seeing  that  it  was  not  yet  the  time 
for  putting  himself  in  the  front  of  the  battle,  he  resisted  the 
solicitations  of  his  Majesty,  and  the  advice  of  his  friends, 

1 Lord  Auckland’s  Cor.,  i.  9,  41. 

2 Mr.  Pitt  was  born  28th  May,  1759. 


64 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


in  order  to  await  a more  fitting  opportunity  of  serving  the 
king.1  In  vain  did  the  king  endeavor  once  more  to  disunite 
the  Coalition,  by  making  separate  proposals  to  Lord  North 
and  the  Duke  of  Portland.  The  new  confederacy  was  not 
to  be  shaken,  — and  the  king  found  himself  at  its  mercy. 
It  was  long,  however,  before  he  would  submit.  He  wrote 
to  Lord  Weymouth  “ to  desire  his  support  against  his  new 
tyrants  ; ” 2 and  “ told  the  Lord  Advocate  that  sooner  than 
yield  he  would  go  to  Hanover,  and  had  even  prevailed 
upon  the  Queen  to  consent.”  From  this  resolution  he  was 
probably  dissuaded  by  the  rough  counsels  of  Lord  Thurlow. 
“ Your  Majesty  may  go,”  said  he  ; “ nothing  is  more  easy  ; 
but  you  may  not  find  it  so  easy  to  return,  when  your  Majes- 
ty becomes  tired  of  staying  there.”  It  was  not  until  the 
country  had  been  for  seventeen  days  without  a government, 
that  the  king  agreed  to  Lord  North’s  scheme  of  a Coalition 
ministry.  But  further  difficulties  were  raised  ; and  at  length 
the  House  of  Commons  interposed.  After  several  debates, 
23d  March,  in  one  °f  which  Mr.  Fox  accused  the  king’s  se- 
11783.  cret  frien(js  0f  breaking  off  the  negotiation,  the 

House  addressed  his  Majesty  to  form  “an  administration 
24th  March,  entitled  to  the  confidence  of  his  people.”  The 
address  was  graciously  answered ; but  still  no  ministry  was 
formed.  Again  the  king  pressed  Mr.  Pitt  to  become  his 
premier,  who  again  firmly  and  finally  refused.3 
Ministry,  At  length,  after  an  extraordinary  interval  of 
thirty-seven  days,  from  the  24th  February  to  the 
2d  April,  the  Coalition  Ministry  was  completed,  under  the 
Duke  of  Portland. 

Such  are  the  vicissitudes  of  political  life,  that  Lord  North, 
who  for  years  had  been  the  compliant  and  obsequi- 
coalition  to  ous  minister  ot  the  king,  was  now  forcing  his  way 
king’s  hi-^e  into  office,  in  alliance  with  Mr.  Fox,  the  king’s  most 
fluence.  dreaded  opponent,  and  lately  his  own.  While  the 


1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  140. 

2 Fox  Mem.,  ii.  42  (Horace  Walpole). 

8 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  150. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


65 


king  was  yet  holding  them  at  bay,  the  new  friends  were  con- 
certing measures  for  restraining  his  future  influence.  As  no 
one  had  submitted  to  that  influence  so  readily  as  Lord  North, 
we  cannot  intrude  into  their  secret  conferences  without  a 
smile.  Mr.  Fox  insisted  that  the  king  should  not  be  suffered 
to  be  his  own  minister,  to  which  Lord  North  replied : “ If 
you  mean  there  should  not  be  a government  by  departments, 
I agree  with  you.  I think  it  a very  bad  system.  There 
should  be  one  man,  or  a cabinet,  to  govern  the  whole,  and 
direct  every  measure.  Government  by  departments  was 
not  brought  in  by  me.  I found  it  so,  and  had  not  the 
vigor  and  resolution  to  put  an  end  to  it.  The  king  ought  to 
be  treated  with  all  sort  of  respect  and  attention  ; but  the  ap- 
pearance of  power  is  all  that  a king  of  this  country  can  have. 
Though  the  government  in  my  time  was  a government  by 
departments,  the  whole  was  done  by  the  ministers,  except  in 
a few  instances.” 1 

But  whatever  were  the  views  of  ministers  regarding  the 
king’s  future  authority,  he  himself  had  no  intention 

_ ° TT  TT  The  king’s  op- 

of  submitting  to  them.  He  did  not  attempt  to  dis-  position  to  his 
guise  his  repugnance  to  the  ministry  which  had 
been  forced  upon  him ; but  gave  them  to  understand  that 
they  need  expect  no  support  from  him,  and  that  he  would 
not  create  any  peers  upon  their  recommendation.  He  told 
Lord  Temple  “ that  to  such  a ministry  he  never  would  give 
his  confidence,  and  that  he  would  take  the  first  moment  for 
dismissing  them.” 2 The  Coalition  had  not  found  favor*  in 
the  country  ; and  no  pains  were  spared,  by  the  king’s  friends, 
to  increase  its  unpopularity.  Meanwhile  the  king  watched 
all  the  proceedings  of  his  ministers  with  jealousy,  criticised 
their  policy,  and  assumed  towards  them  an  attitude  of  oppo- 
sition. Thus,  writing  to  Mr.  Fox,  who,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
was  negotiating  the  peace,  in  August,  1783,  he  said  : “ I can- 
not say  that  I am  so  surprised  at  France  not  putting  the  last 

1 Fox  Mem.,  ii.  38. 

2 Court,  and  Cabinets  of  George  III,,  i.  302. 

5 


VOL.  I. 


66 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


strokes  to  the  definitive  treaty  a,s  soon  as  we  may  wish,  as 
our  having  totally  disarmed,  in  addition  to  the  extreme  anx- 
iety shown  for  peace,  during  the  whole  period  that  has 
ensued,  since  the  end  of  February,  1782,  certainly  makes  her 
feel  that  she  can  have  no  reason  to  apprehend  any  evil  from 
so  slighting  a proceeding.”  1 

An  opportunity  soon  arose  for  more  active  hostility.  Mr. 
Mr.  Fox’s  in-  Fox’s  India  Bill  had  been  brought  into  the  House 
dia  Bin,  1783.  0ommons  . an(j?  in  Spite  0f  the  most  strenuous 

opposition,  was  being  rapidly  passed  by  large  majorities.  It 
was  denounced  as  unconstitutional,  and  as  an  invasion  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  Crown  ; but  no  means  had  been  found  to 
stay  its  progress.  The  king  now  concerted  with  his  friends 
a bold  and  unscrupulous  plan  for  defeating  the  bill,  and  over- 
throwing his  ministers.  His  name  was  to  be  used,  and  an 

active  canvass  undertaken  by  his  authority,  against 

Use  of  the  . J / , 

king’s  name  the  measure  of  his  own  ministers.  I hough  this  plan 
agamst  it.  was  agreed  upon  eight  days  before  the  bill  reached 
the  House  of  Lords,  it  was  cautiously  concealed.  To  arrest 
the  progress  of  the  bill  in  the  Commons  was  hopeless  ; and 
the  interference  of  the  Crown,  in  that  House,  would  have 
excited  dangerous  resentment.  The  blow  was  therefore  to 
be  struck  in  the  other  House,  where  it  would  have  greater 
weight,  and  be  attended  with  less  danger.2  Lord  Temple,  — 
who  had  suggested  the  plan,  in  concert  with  Lord  Thurlow, 
and  to  whom  its  execution  was  intrusted,  — after  an  audience 
with  his  Majesty,  declared  himself  authorized  to  protest 
against  the  bill  in  the  king’s  name.  And  in  order  to  leave 
no  doubt  as  to  his  commission,  the  following  words  were 
written  upon  a card  : — 

“ His  Majesty  allows  Earl  Temple  to  say,  that  whoever 
voted  for  the  India  Bill,  was  not  only  not  his  friend,  but 
would  be  considered  by  him  as  an  enemy ; and  if  these 
words  were  not  strong  enough,  Earl  Temple  might  use 

1 Fox  Mem.,  ii.  141. 

2 Court  and  Cabinets  of  George  III.,  i.  288,  289. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


67 


whatever  words  he  might  deem  stronger,  and  more  to  the 
purpose.” 1 

With  these  credentials,  Lord  Temple  proceeded  to  canvass 
the  peers,  — with  what  success  was  soon  apparent.  On  the 
first  reading,  supported  by  Lord  Thurlow  and  the  Duke  of 
Richmond,  he  gave  the  signal  of  attack.  The  peers  assumed 
a threatening  attitude,2 3  and  on  the  15th  December,  placed 
the  ministers  in  a minority,  on  a question  of  adjournment. 
Little  secrecy  or  reserve  was  maintained  by  the  king’s  friends, 
who  took  care  to  proclaim  his  Majesty’s  wishes.  The  use 
made  of  the  king’s  name  was  noticed  by  the  Duke  of  Port- 
land, the  Duke  of  Richmond,  and  Earl  Fitz william;  and  was 
not  denied  by  Lord  Temple.8 

Mr.  Fitzpatrick,  writing  to  Lord  Ossory,  on  the  15th  De- 
cember, said  : “ The  proxies  of  the  king’s  friends  are  arrived 
against  the  bill.  The  public  is  full  of  alarm  and  astonish- 
ment at  the  treachery,  as  well  as  the  imprudence,  of  this  un- 
constitutional interference.  Nobody  guesses  what  will  be  the 
consequences  of  a conduct  that  is  generally  compared  to  that 
of  Charles  I.,  in  1641.”  4 

Before  the  success  of  the  court  measures  was  complete,  the 
Commons  endeavored  to  arrest  them.  On  the  17th  Declaration  of 
December,  Mr.  Baker,  after  denouncing  secret  the  Commons 

7 7 ° against  the 

advice  to  the  Crown,  against  its  responsible  min-  use  of  the 

. - , n . , . , king’s  name. 

isters,  and  the  use  ot  the  king  s name,  moved  a 17 th  Dec., 

° 7 1783. 

resolution,  “that  it  is  now  necessary  to  declare, 
that  to  report  any  opinion,  or  pretended  opinion,  of  his  Maj- 
esty, upon  any  bill,  or  other  proceeding,  depending  in  either 
House  of  Parliament,  with  a view  to  influence  the  votes  of 
the  members,  is  a high  crime  and  misdemeanor,  derogatory 
to  the  honor  of  the  Crown,  — a breach  of  the  fundamental 

1 Court  and  Cabinets  of  George  III.,  i.  288,  289;  Fox  Mem.,  ii.  253. 

2 Many  of  them  withdrew  their  proxies  from  the  ministers  a few  hours 
before  the  meeting  of  the  House.  — Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  211. 

3 15th  Dec.,  1783;  Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  151-160;  Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i. 
222;  Rose  Corresp.,  i.  47 ; Lord  Auckland’s  Corresp.,  i.  67. 

4 Fox  Mem.,  ii.  220. 


68 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


privileges  of  Parliament,  and  subversive  of  the  constitu- 
tion.” 1 

In  vain  did  Mr.  Pitt  contend  that  the  House  could  not 
deal  with  rumors,  and  that  the  hereditary  councillors  of  the 
Crown  had  always  a right  to  give  advice  to  their  sovereign. 
Mr.  Fox  replied  in  a masterly  speech,  full  of  constitutional 
arguments,  and  eloquent  with  indignant  remonstrances.2 
The  resolution  was  voted  by  a majority  of  158  to  80.  The 
House  then  resolved  to  go  into  committee  on  the  state  of 
the  nation,  on  the  following  Monday.  But  this  was  not 
enough.  It  was  evident  that  the  king  had  determined  upon 
a change  of  ministers ; and  lest  he  should  also  attempt  to 
overthrow  the  obnoxious  majority  by  a sudden  dissolution, 
the  House,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Erskine,  agreed  to  a res- 
olution affirming  the  necessity  of  considering  a suitable  rem- 
edy for  abuses  in  the  government  of  the  British  dominions 
in  the  East  Indies ; and  declaring  “ that  this  House  will  con- 
sider as  an  enemy  to  his  country,  any  person  who  shall  pre- 
sume to  advise  his  Majesty  to  prevent,  or  in  any  manner 
interrupt,  the  discharge  of  this  important  duty.”  3 

The  strange  spectacle  was  here  exhibited,  of  a king  plot- 
The  India  Bill  ting  against  his  own  ministers,  — of  the  ministers 
istersadis-mm  inveighing  against  the  conduct  of  their  royal  mas- 
missed‘  ter, — of  the  House  of  Commons  supporting  them, 

and  condemning  the  king,  — and  of  the  king  defying  at  once 
his  ministers  and  the  House  of  Commons,  and  trusting  to 
his  influence  with  the  Peers.  The  king’s  tactics  prevailed. 
On  the  very  day  on  wThich  the  Commons  agreed  to  these 
strong  remonstrances  against  his  interference,  it  was  crowned 
with  complete  success.  The  bill  was  rejected  by  the  House 

1 Com.  Journ.,  xxxix.  842 ; Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  199. 

2 Mr.  Fox  cited  the  words  reported  to  have  been  used  by  Lord  Temple, 
and  challenged  a contradiction ; upon  which  Mr.  W.  Grenville  said,  he  was 
authorized  by  his  noble  relative  to  say  that  he  had  never  made  use  of  those 
words.  This  denial,  as  Mr.  Fox  observed,  amounted  to  nothing  more  than 
that  these  had  not  been  the  precise  words  used.  — Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  207, 
225. 

8 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  226. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


69 


of  Lords,1  and  the  next  day  the  king  followed  up  his  advan- 
tage, by  at  once  dismissing  his  ministers.2  To  make  this 
dismissal  as  contemptuous  as  possible,  he  sent  a message  to 
Lord  North,  and  Mr.  Fox,  commanding  them  to  return 
their  seals  by  their  under-secretaries,  as  an  audience  would 
be  disagreeable  to  his  Majesty.8  Earl  Temple,  who  had 
done  the  king  this  service,  was  intrusted  with  the  seals  for 
the  purpose  of  formally  dismissing  the  other  ministers : the 
man  who  had  been  the  king’s  chief  agent  in  defeating  them, 
was  chosen  to  offer  them  this  last  insult. 

But  the  battle  was  not  yet  won.  The  king  had  struck 
down  his  ministers,  though  supported  by  a vast  Mr>  pJtt  as 
majority  of  the  House  of  Commons  : he  had  now  Premier>1783. 
to  support  a minister  of  his  own  choice  against  that  majority, 
and  to  overcome  it.  Mr.  Pitt  no  longer  hesitated  to  take 
the  post  of  trust  and  danger,  which  the  king  at  once  con- 
ferred upon  him.  His  time  had  .now  come  ; and  he  resolved 
to  give  battle  to  an  angry  majority,  — under  leaders  of  great 
talents  and  experience,  — smarting  under  defeat,  — and  full 
of  resentment  at  the  unconstitutional  means  by  which  they 
had  been  overthrown.  He  accepted  the  offices  of  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer ; and 
the  king’s  sturdy  friend,  Lord  Thurlow,  was  reinstated  as 
Lord  Chancellor.  Mr.  Pitt  had  also  relied  upon  the  assist- 
ance of  Earl  Temple,4  whose  zeal  in  the  king’s  service  was 
much  needed  in  such  a crisis ; but  that  nobleman  resigned 
the  seals  a few  days  after  he  had  received  them,  assigning 
as  his  reason  a desire  to  be  free  to  answer  any  charges 
against  him,  arising  out  of  his  recent  conduct.5 

1 17th  Dec.,  1783.  By  a majority  of  19.  — Pari . Hist.,  xxiv.  196. 

2 Mr.  Fox,  writing  immediately  afterwards,  said:  “We  are  beat  in  the 
House  of  Lords  by  such  treachery  on  the  part  of  the  king,  and  such  mean- 
ness on  the  part  of  his  friends  in  the  House  of  Lords,  as  one  could  not 
expect  either  from  him  or  them.”  — Fox  Mem.,  ii.  221,  253. 

3 Annual  Reg.,  xxvii.  [71] ; Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  230. 

4 He  was  intended  to  lead  the  House  of  Lords.  — Tomline's  Life  of  Pitt, 
i.  232. 

5 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  237. 


70 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


The  contest  which  the  youthful  premier  had  now  to 
conduct,  was  the  most  arduous  that  had  ever  de- 

Opposition  in  r 

the  Com-  volved  upon  any  minister,  since  the  accession  of 


the  majority  against  him,  that  there  seemed  scarcely  a hope 
of  offering  it  an  effectual  resistance.  His  opponents  were 
so  confident  of  success,  that  when  a new  writ  was  moved  for 
Appleby,  on  his  acceptance  of  office,  the  motion  was  re- 
ceived with  shouts  of  derisive  laughter.1  And  while  the 
presumption  of  the  boy-minister  was  ridiculed,2  the  strongest 
measures  were  immediately  taken  to  deprive  him  of  his 
authority,  and  to  intimidate  the  court,  whose  policy  he  sup- 
ported. Many  of  Mr.  Pitt’s  advisers,  desparing  of  his  pros- 
pects with  the  present  Parliament,  counselled  an  immediate 
dissolution  : 3 but  the  same  consummate  judgment  and  fore- 
sight, which,  a few  months  earlier,  had  induced  him  to 
decline  office,  because  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe  for  action, 
now  led  him  to  the  conviction  that  he  must  convert  public 
opinion  to  his  side,  before  he  appealed  to  the  people. 
Though  standing  alone,  — without  the  aid  of  a single  cabi- 
net minister,  in  the  House  of  Commons,4  — he  resolved, 
under  every  disadvantage,  to  meet  the  assaults  of  his  oppo- 
nents on  their  own  ground  ; and  his  talents,  his  courage  and 
resources  ultimately  won  a signal  victory. 

Secure  of  their  present  majority,  the  first  object  of  the 


1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  237. 

2 Pitt,  to  use  the  happy  phrase  of  Erskine,  was  “ hatched  at  once  into  a 
minister  by  the  heat  of  his  own  ambition.”  — Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  277.  In 
the  Rolliad,  his  youth  was  thus  ridiculed : — 

“ A sight  to  make  surrounding  nations  stare,  — 

A kingdom  trusted  to  a schoolboy’s  care.” 


mons. 


the  House  of  Hanover.  So  overpowering  was 


Attempts  to 


Opposition  was  to  prevent  a dissolution,  which 


prevent  a dis-  they  believed  to  be  impending.  The  day  after 


insisted  on  the  postponement  of  the  third  reading 


8 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  241,  242. 


4 Ibid.,  i.  236. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


71 


of  the  Land-tax  Bill  for  two  days,  in  order,  as  Mr.  Fox 
avowed,  that  it  might  not  “ go  out  of  their  hands  until  they 
should  have  taken  such  measures  as  would  guard  against  the 
evils  which  might  be  expected  from  a dissolution.” 1 On 
the  2 2d  December,  the  House  went  into  committee  on  the 
state  of  the  nation,  when  Mr.  Erskine  moved  an  address  to 
the  Crown,  representing  “ that  alarming  rumors  of  an  in- 
tended dissolution  of  Parliament  have  gone  forth ; ” that 
“ inconveniences  and  dangers  ” were  “ likely  to  follow  from 
a prorogation  or  dissolution  of  the  Parliament  in  the  pres- 
ent arduous  and  critical  conjunction  of  affairs ; ” and  be- 
seeching his  Majesty  “to  suffer  his  faithful  Commons  to 
proceed  on  the  business  of  the  session,  the  furtherance  of 
which  is  so  essentially  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
public ; and  that  his  Majesty  will  be  graciously  pleased  to 
hearken  to  the  advice  of  his  faithful  Commons,  and  not  to 
the  secret  advices  of  particular  persons,  who  may  have  pri- 
vate interests  of  their  own,  separate  from  the  true  interests 
of  his  Majesty  and  his  people.”  2 Notwithstanding  assur- 
ances that  Mr.  Pitt  had  no  intention  of  advising  a dissolu- 
tion, and  would  not  consent  to  it  if  advised  by  others,  the 
address  was  agreed  to,  and  presented  to  the  king  by  the 
whole  House.  In  his  answer  the  king  assured  them  that 
he  would  “ not  interrupt  their  meeting  by  any  exercise  of 
his  prerogative,  either  of  prorogation  or  dissolution.” 3 This 
assurance,  it  was  observed,  merely  referred  to  the  meeting 
of  Parliament  after  the  Christmas  recess,  and  did  not  re- 
move the  apprehensions  of  the  Opposition.  On  the  24th 
December,  a resolution  was  agreed  to,  that  the  Treasury 
ought  not  to  consent  to  the  acceptance  of  any  more  bills 
from  India,  until  it  should  appear  to  the  House  that  there 
were  sufficient  means  to  meet  them.4 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  230. 

2 Ibid.,  246.  The  last  paragraph  of  the  address  was  taken  from  an  ad- 
dress to  William  III.  in  1693. 

3 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  264. 

4 Ibid.,  267. 


72 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


These  strong  measures  had  been  taken  in  Mr.  Pitt’s 
12th  Jan.  absence ; and  on  his  return  to  the  House,  after 
1784.  Christmas,  the  Opposition  resumed  their  offensive 

attitude.  Mr.  Fox  went  so  far  as  to  refuse  to  allow  Mr. 
Pitt  to  deliver  a message  from  the  king ; and  being  in  pos- 
session of  the  House,  at  once  moved  the  order  of  the  day  for 
the  committee  on  the  state  of  the  nation. 

In  the  debate  which  ensued,  the  Opposition  attempted  to 
extort  a promise  that  Parliament  should  not  be  dissolved ; 
but  Mr.  Pitt  said  he  would  not  “ presume  to  compromise  the 
royal  prerogative,  or  bargain  it  away  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons.” 1 This  debate  was  signalized  by  the  declaration  of 
General  Ross  that  he  had  been  sent  for  by  a Lord  of  the  Bed- 
chamber, and  told  that  if  he  voted  against  the  new  adminis- 
tration on  the  12th  January,  he  would  be  considered  as  an 
enemy  to  the  king.2 * *  Being  unable  to  obtain  any  pledge  from 
the  minister,  the  Opposition  at  once  addressed  themselves  to 
devise  effectual  obstacles  to  an  early  dissolution.  The  House 
resolved  itself  into  the  committee  on  the  state  of  the  nation, 
at  half-past  two  in  the  morning,  — by  a majority  of  forty 
against  the  ministers,  — when  Mr.  Fox  immediately  moved 
a resolution,  which  was  agreed  to  without  a division,  declar- 
Resoiution  ing  it  to  be  a high  crime  and  misdemeanor  to  issue, 
oPmoneyS * *un-  after  a dissolution  or  prorogation,  money  voted  for 
byPPari?a-ted  any  ser™e  which  had  not  been  appropriated  to 
ment-  such  service  by  Parliament.8 

He  then  moved  for  “accounts  of  the  several  sums  of 
money  issued,  or  ordered  to  be  issued,  from  the  19th  De- 
cember, 1783,  to  the  14th  January,  1784,  inclusive,  to  any 
person  or  persons  towards  ” naval,  ordnance,  army,  or  civil 


1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  294. 

2 Ibid.,  205,  299. 

8 Com.  Journ.,  xxxix.  858.  These  grants  were  revoted  in  the  next  Par- 

liament, — a fact  overlooked  by  Dr.  Tomline,  who  states  that  the  Appro- 

priation Act  of  1784  included  the  supplies  of  the  previous  session,  without 

any  opposition  being  offered.  — Life  of  Pitt , i.  507 ; 24  Geo.  III.,  Sess.  ii. 

c.  24;  Com.  Journ.,  xxxix.  733;  Ibid.,  xl.  56. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


73 


services,  “ or  in  any  other  manner  whatever,  for  and  towards 
services  voted  in  the  present  session  of  Parliament,  but  not 
appropriated  by  any  act  of  Parliament  to  such  services.” 
He  also  proposed  to  add,  “ that  no  moneys  should  be  issued 
for  any  public  service,  till  that  return  was  made,  nor  for 
three  days  afterwards  ; ” but  withdrew  this  motion,  on  being 
assured  that  it  would  be  attended  with  inconvenience.  He 
further  obtained  the  postponement  of  the  Mutiny  Bill  until 
the  23d  February,  which  still  left  time  for  its  passing  before 
the  expiration  of  the  Annual  Mutiny  Act. 

These  resolutions  were  followed  by  another,  proposed  by 
the  Earl  of  Surrey,  “ That  in  the  present  situa- 

„ _ . __  . J \ _ . . . r.  ' Earl  of  Sur- 

tion  ot  his  Majesty  s dominions,  it  is  peculiarly  rey’s  resoiu- 

necessary  that  there  should  be  an  administration 
which  has  the  confidence  of  this  House  and  the  public.” 
This  being  carried,  he  proceeded  to  another,  “ That  the  late 
changes  in  his  Majesty’s  councils  were  immediately  preceded 
by  dangerous  and  universal  reports ; that  his  Majesty’s  sacred 
name  had  been  unconstitutionally  abused  to  affect  the  deliber- 
ations of  Parliament ; and  that  the  appointments  made  were 
accompanied  by  circumstances  new  and  extraordinary,  and 
such  as  do  not  conciliate  or  engage  the  confidence  of  this 
House.” 

All  these  resolutions  were  reported  immediately  and 
agreed  to,  and  the  House  did  not  adjourn  until  half-past 
1 seven  in  the  morning.1 

Two  days  afterwards  the  attack  was  renewed.  A resolu- 
tion was  carried  in  the  committee,  “ That  the  con-  Resolutions 
tinuance  of  the  present  ministers  in  trusts  of  the  ^ntof  con- 
highest  importance  and  responsibility,  is  contrary  ^te^an 
to  constitutional  principles,  and  injurious  to  the  1784. 
interests  of  his  Majesty  and  his  people.” 2 The  Opposition 
accused  the  minister  of  reviving  the  distracted  times  before 
the  Revolution,  when  the  House  of  Commons  was  generally 
at  variance  with  the  Crown ; but  he  listened  to  Jan.  23d. 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  317.  2 Ibid.,  361. 


74 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


their  remonstrances  with  indifference.  He  brought  in  his 
India  Bill : it  was  thrown  out  after  the  second  reading. 
Again,  he  was  goaded  to  declare  his  intentions  concerning 
a dissolution ; but  to  the  indignation  of  his  opponents,  he 
maintained  silence.  At  length,  on  the  26th  January,  he  de- 
clared that,  in  the  present  situation  of  affairs,  he  should  not 
advise  a dissolution.  At  the  same  time,  he  said  that  the  ap- 
pointment and  removal  of  ministers  did  not  rest  with  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  that  as  his  resignation  would  be  in- 
jurious to  the  public  service,  he  still  intended  to  retain  office. 
The  House  passed  a resolution  affirming  that  they  relied 
upon  the  king’s  assurances,  that  the  consideration  of  the 
affairs  of  the  East  India  Company  should  not  be  interrupted 
by  a prorogation  or  dissolution. 

Meanwhile,  several  influential  members  were  endeavoring 
Attempts  to  to  Put  an  en^  to  unsettled  state  of  affairs,  by 
unite  parties,  effecting  an  union  of  the  ministerial  and  opposi- 
tion parties.  With  this  view,  on  the  2d  February,  General 
Grosvenor  moved  a resolution : “ That  the  present  arduous 
and  critical  situation  of  public  affairs  requires  the  exertion  of 
a firm,  efficient,  extended,  united  administration,  entitled  to 
the  confidence  of  the  people,  and  such  as  may  have  a ten- 
dency to  put  an  end  to  the  unfortunate  divisions  and  distrac- 
tions of  this  country.”  1 This  being  carried,  was  immediately 
followed  by  another,  proposed  by  Mr.  Coke  of  Norfolk : 
a That  the  continuance  of  the  present  ministers  in  their 
offices,  is  an  obstacle  to  the  formation  of  such  an  adminis- 
tration as  may  enjoy  the  confidence  of  this  House.”  This, 
too,  was  agreed  to,  on  a division.2  As  these  resolutions  had 
no  more  effect  than  any  previous  votes,  in  shaking  the  firm- 
ness of  the  minister,  they  were  ordered,  on  the  following  day, 
to  be  laid  before  his  Majesty. 

The  House  of  Lords  now  came  to  the  aid  of  the  king  and 
his  minister.  On  the  4th  February,  the  Earl  of  Effingham 
moved  two  resolutions.  The  first,  having  reference  to  the 

2 By  223  against  204. 


1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  451. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


75 


vote  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  24th  December  as  to 
the  acceptance  of  bills  from  India,  affirmed,  “ That 
an  attempt  m any  one  branch  ot  the  legislature  Lords  support 
to  suspend  the  execution  of  law  by  separately  the  kms' 
assuming  to  itself  the  direction  of  a discretionary  power, 
which,  by  an  act  of  Parliament,  is  vested  in  any  body  of 
men,  to  be  exercised  as  they  shall  judge  expedient,  is  uncon- 
stitutional.” The  second  was  that  66  The  undoubted  author- 
ity of  appointing  to  the  great  offices  of  executive  govern- 
ment is  solely  vested  in  his  Majesty ; and  that  this  House 
has  every  reason  to  place  the  firmest  reliance  on  his  Maj- 
esty’s wisdom,  in  the  exercise  of  this  prerogative.”  The 
first  was  carried  by  a majority  of  forty-seven ; the  second 
was  agreed  to  without  a division.  They  were  followed  by 
an  address  to  the  king,  assuring  him  of  their  Lordships’  sup- 
port in  the  exercise  of  his  undoubted  prerogative,  and  of 
their  reliance  upon  his  wisdom  in  the  choice  of  his  ministers. 
To  this  address  he  returned  an  answer,  “ that  he  had  no 
object  in  the  choice  of  ministers,  but  to  call  into  his  service 
men  the  most  deserving  of  the  confidence  of  his  Parliament, 
and  of  the  public  in  general.” 1 

To  these  proceedings  the  Commons  replied  by  inspecting 
the  Lords’  Journal  for  their  obnoxious  resolutions,  Retort  of  the 
— by  searching  for  precedents  of  the  usage  of Commoils- 
Parliament,  — and,  finally,  by  declaring  that  the  House  had 
not  assumed  to  suspend  the  execution  of  law ; — and  that 
they  had  a right  to  declare  their  opinion  respecting  the  ex- 
ercise of  every  discretionary  power,  and  particularly  with 
reference  to  public  money.  They  justified  their  previous 
votes,  and  asserted  their  determination  to  maintain  their 
own  privileges,  while  they  avoided  any  encroachment  on  the 
rights  of  either  of  the  other  branches  of  the  legislature. 

In  the  mean  time,  no  answer  had  been  returned  to  the 
resolutions  which  the  Commons  had  laid  before  the  king. 
When  this  was  noticed,  Mr.  Pitt  was  silent ; 2 and  at  length, 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  525.  See  also  Lord  Auckland’s  Corr.,  i.  74. 

2 Feb.  9th;  Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  571. 


76 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


on  the  10th  February,  on  the  report  of  the  ordnance  esti- 

, mates,  Mr.  Fox  said  that  the  House  could  not  vote 

ment  of  the  supplies,  until  they  knew  what  answer  they  were 
to  receive.  Mr.  Pitt  engaged  that  the  House 
should  be  informed  what  line  of  conduct  his  Majesty  intended 
to  pursue  ; and  the  report,  instead  of  being  agreed  to,  was 
recommitted.  On  the  18th,  Mr.  Pitt  acquainted  the  House 
“ that  his  Majesty  had  not  yet,  in  compliance  with  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  House,  thought  proper  to  dismiss  his  present 
ministers;  and  that  his  Majesty’s  ministers  had  not  re- 
signed.” 1 This  announcement  was  regarded  as  a defiance 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  again  the  supplies  were 
postponed : though  the  leaders  of  the  Opposition  disclaimed 
„ . all  intention  of  refusing  them.  On  the  20th,  an- 

dresses  to  the  other  resolution  and  an  address  were  voted,2  ex- 
pressing reliance  upon  the  royal  wisdom  to  remove 
“ any  obstacle  to  the  formation  of  such  an  administration  as 
the  House  has  declared  to  be  requisite.”  The  address  was 
presented  by  the  whole  House.  The  king  replied,  that  he 
was  anxious  for  a firm  and  united  administration ; but  that 
no  charge  had  been  suggested  against  his  present  ministers  ; 
that  numbers  of  his  subjects  had  expressed  satisfaction  at  the 
late  changes  in  his  councils ; and  that  the  Commons  could 
not  expect  the  executive  offices  to  be  vacated,  until  such  a 
plan  of  union  as  they  had  pointed  out,  could  be  carried  into 
effect.3  This  answer  was  appointed  to  be  considered  on  the 
1st  March,  to  which  day  the  House  adjourned,  without  en- 
tering upon  any  other  business  ; and  thus  again  the  supplies 
were  postponed.  On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fox,  the  House 
then  presented  a further  address  to  the  king,  submitting 
“ that  the  continuance  of  an  administration  which  does  not 
possess  the  confidence  of  the  representatives  of  the  people, 

1 Feb.  9th;  Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  595. 

2 While  in  the  lobby,  on  the  division  on  the  resolution,  Mr.  Fox  proposed 
to  his  supporters  to  move  an  address  immediately  afterwards,  which  was 
agreed  to  at  five  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

8 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  677. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CKOWN. 


77 


must  be  injurious  to  the  public  service,”  and  praying  for  its 
removal.  Mr.  Fox  maintained  it  to  be  without  precedent 
for  a ministry  to  hold  office,  in  defiance  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  Mr.  Pitt  retorted  that  the  history  of  this  coun- 
try afforded  no  example  of  a ministry  being  called  upon  to 
retire  untried,  and  without  a cause.  The  king,  in  his  reply, 
took  up  the  same  ground,  and  affirming  that  no  charge,  com- 
plaint, or  specific  objection  had  yet  been  made  against  any 
of  his  ministers,  again  declined  to  dismiss  them.  And  thus 
stood  the  king  and  his  ministers  on  one  side,  and  the  House 
of  Commons  on  the  other,  arrayed  in  hostile  attitude,  — each 
party  standing  firmly  on  its  constitutional  rights:  the  one 
active  and  offensive,  — the  other  patiently  waiting  to  strike 
a decisive  blow. 

The  Mutiny  Bill  was  now  postponed  for  some  days,  as  its 
passing  was  expected  to  be  the  signal  for  an  immediate  dis- 
solution ; and  one  more  effort  was  made  to  drive  the  minis- 
ters from  office.  On  the  8th  March,  “ a representation  ” to 
the  king  was  moved  by  Mr.  Fox,1  to  testify  the  surprise  and 
affliction  of  the  House  on  receiving  his  Majesty’s  answer 
to  their  last  address,  — reiterating  all  their  previous  state- 
ments, — comparing  the  conduct  and  principles  of  his  ad- 
visers with  those  which  characterized  the  unfortunate  reigns 
of  the  Stuarts, — justifying  the  withholding  of  their  confi- 
dence from  ministers  without  preferring  any  charge,  as  it 
was  their  removal  and  not  their  punishment  which  was 
sought,  — and  taking  credit  to  themselves  for  their  forbear- 
ance, in  not  withholding  the  supplies.2  This  was  the  last 
struggle  of  the  Opposition.  When  their  encoun-  pinal 
ters  with  the  ministry  began,  their  majority  was  ^^tofsthe 
nearly  two  to  one.  This  great  disproportion  soon 
diminished,  though  it  was  still,  for  a time,  considerable.  On 

3 On  this  occasion  strangers  were  excluded,  at  the  instance  of  Sir  Janies 
Lowther,  who  had  failed  in  gaining  admission  to  the  gallery  for  a friend. 
The  debate  is  not  therefore  fully  reported. 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xxiv.  736. 


78 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


the  12th  January  their  majority  was  fifty-four ; on  the  20th 
February  it  was  reduced  to  twenty.  On  the  1st  March  it 
fell  to  twelve  : on  the  5th  it  was  only  nine ; and  now,  on 
this  last  occasion,  it  dwindled  to  one.  The  parliamentary 
contest  was  at  an  end.  The  king  and  his  ministers  had  tri- 
umphed, and  were  about  to  appeal  from  Parliament  to  the 
people.  The  Mutiny  Bill  was  passed,  — large  supplies  were 
voted  rapidly,  but  not  appropriated:  on  the  24th  March, 
Parliament  was  prorogued,  and  on  the  following  day  dis- 
solved. 

While  this  contest  was  being  carried  on  in  Parliament,  the 
Reflections  on  contending  parties  were  not  idle  out  of  doors.  The 
this  struggle.  who  rushed  into  it  with  so  much  boldness, 

had  not  been  prepared  for  the  alarming  demonstrations  of 
Parliament.  If  the  minister  of  his  choice  had  now  been 
driven  from  power,  he  would  have  been  prostrate  before  the 
Coalition.  This  danger  was  at  first  imminent ; and  the  king 
awaited  it  with  dismay.  Defeat  in  such  a contest  would 
have  been  humiliating  and  disgraceful.  Believing  that  he 
could  be  “no  longer  of  utility  to  this  country,  nor  could  with 
honor  continue  in  this  island,”  he  repeated  his  threats  of  re- 
tiring to  Hanover,  rather  than  submit  to  what  he  deemed 
the  destruction  of  his  kingly  power.1  From  such  extremi- 
ties, however,  he  was  relieved  by  the  declining  numbers  of 
his  opponents,  and  the  increasing  influence  and  popularity 
of  his  own  cause.  The  Coalition,  though  powerful  in  Par- 
liament, by  means  of  a combination  of  parties,  had  never 
been  popular  in  the  country.  While  in  power  they  had 
been  exposed  to  continual  obloquy,  which  was  redoubled 
after  their  dismissal.  The  new  ministers  and  the  court 
party,  taking  advantage  of  this  feeling,  represented  Mr. 
Fox’s  India  Bill  as  an  audacious  attempt  to  interfere  with 
the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  and  its  authors  as  enemies 
of  the  king  and  constitution.  The  loyalty  of  the  people  was 
aroused,  and  they  soon  ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  the 
1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  271,  341,  396. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


79 


king  and  his  ministers.  Addresses  and  other  demonstra- 
tions of  popular  sympathy  were  received  from  all  parts  of 
the  country  ; and  the  king  was  thus  encouraged  to  maintain 
a firm  attitude  in  front  of  his  opponents.1  The  tactics  of 
the  two  parties  in  Parliament,  and  the  conduct  of  their  lead- 
ers, were  also  calculated  to  convert  public  opinion  to  the 
king’s  side.  Too  much  exasperated  to  act  with  caution,  the 
Opposition  ruined  their  cause  by  factious  extravagance  and 
precipitancy.  They  were  resolved  to  take  the  king’s  cabi- 
net by  storm,  and  without  pause  or  parley  struck  incessantly 
at  the  door.  Their  very  dread  of  a dissolution,  which  they 
so  loudly  condemned,  showed  little  confidence  in  popular 
support.  Instead  of  making  common  cause  with  the  people, 
they  lowered  their  contention  to  a party  struggle.  Consti- 
tutionally the  king  had  a right  to  dismiss  his  ministers,  and 
to  appeal  to  the  people  to  support  his  new  administration. 
The  Opposition  endeavored  to  restrain  him  in  the  exercise 
of  this  right,  and  to  coerce  him  by  a majority  of  the  exist- 
ing House  of  Commons.  They  had  overstepped  the  consti- 
tutional limits  of  their  power;  and  the  assaults  directed 
against  prerogative,  recoiled  upon  themselves. 

On  the  other  side,  Mr.  Pitt  as  minister  relied  upon  the 
prerogative  of  the  king  to  appoint  him,  — the  duty  of  Parlia- 
ment to  consider  his  measures,  — and  his  own  right  to  advise 
the  king  to  dissolve  Parliament,  if  those  measures  were  ob- 
structed. The  tact,  judgment,  courage,  and  commanding 
talents  of  Mr.  Pitt  inspired  his  party  with  confidence,  and 
secured  popularity  for  his  cause  ; while,  by  maintaining  a 
defensive  attitude,  he  offered  no  diversion  to  the  factious 
tactics  of  his  opponents.  His  accession  to  office  had  been 
immediately  marked  by  the  defection  of  several  members 

1 Writing  to  Mr.  Pitt,  22d  Feb.,  in  reference  to  his  answer  to  the  address 
of  the  20th,  the  king  said : “ I trust  that  while  the  answer  is  drawn  up  with 
civility,  it  will  be  a clear  support  of  my  own  rights,  which  the  addresses 
from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom  show  me  the  people  feel  essential  to  their  lib- 
erties.” — Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt , i.  457. 


80 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


from  the  Opposition,  — a circumstance  always  calculated 
upon  by  a minister  in  those  times,  — and  was  soon  followed  * 
by  the  forbearance  of  others,  who  were  not  prepared  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  violent  measures  of  their  leaders.  The  influ- 
ence of  the  court  and  Government  was  strenuously  exerted 
in  making  converts ; and  the  growing  popularity  of  their 
cause  discouraged  the  less  zealous  of  their  opponents. 

Mr.  Pitt  had  waited  patiently  while  the  majorities  against 
him  in  Parliament  were  falling  away,  and  public  opinion  was 
declaring  itself,  more  and  more,  in  his  favor.  The  results  of 
the  dissolution  now  revealed  the  judgment  with  which  he 
had  conducted  his  cause,  and  chosen  his  time  for  appealing 
to  the  people.1  Every  preparation  had  been  made  for  using 
the  influence  of  the  Crown  at  the  elections,  - — the  king  him- 
self took  the  deepest  personal  interest  in  the  success  of  the 
ministerial  candidates ; 2 and  Mr.  Pitt’s  popularity  was  at  its 
height,  when  Parliament  was  dissolved.  His  enemies  were 
everywhere  put  to  the  rout,  at  the  hustings.  To  support 
Mr.  Pitt  was  the  sole  pledge  of  the  popular  candidates.  Up- 
wards of  one  hundred  and  sixty  of  his  late  opponents  lost 
their  seats ; 8 and  on  the  assembling  of  the  new  Parliament, 
he  could  scarcely  reckon  his  majorities.4  The  minister  was 
popular  in  the  country,  all-powerful  in  Parliament,  and  had 
the  entire  confidence  of  the  court.  If  such  was  the  success 
of  the  minister,  what  was  the  triumph  of  the  king ! He  had 

luThe  precedent  of  1784  establishes  this  rule  of  conduct:  that  if  the 
ministers  chosen  by  the  Crown  do  not  possess  the  confidence  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  they  may  advise  an  appeal  to  the  people,  with  whom  rests 
the  ultimate  decision.  This  course  has  been  followed  in  1807,  in  1831,  in 
1834,  and  in  1841.  In  1807  and  1831,  the  Crown  was  enabled,  as  in  1784, 
to  obtain  the  confidence  of  the  New  House  of  Commons.  In  1834  and  1841, 
the  decision  was  adverse  to  the  existing  ministry.”  — Lord  John  Russell's 
Memorials  of  Fox , ii.  246. 

2 Rose  Corresp.,  i.  61,  62. 

8 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i.  469. 

4 His  India  Bill  was  carried  by  a majority  of  271  to  60.  He  was  defeated, 
however,  on  the  Westminster  Scrutiny,  Parliamentary  Reform,  and  the 
Scheme  of  Fortifications  on  the  Coast. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


81 


expelled  one  ministry,  and  retained  another,  in  defiance  of  the 
House  of  Commons.  The  people  had  pressed  forward  loyally 
to  his  support ; and  by  their  aid  he  had  overborne  all  opposition 
to  his  will.  He  now  possessed  a strong  government,  and  a min- 
ister in  whom  he  confided ; and  he  enjoyed  once  more  power, 
freedom,  and  popularity.  Not  only  had  he  overcome  and 
ruined  a party  which  he  hated ; but  he  had  established  the 
ascendency  of  the  Crown,  which  henceforth,  for  nearly  fifty 
years,  continued  to  prevail  over  every  other  power  in  the  state. 

Such  results,  however,  were  not  without  danger.  Already 
the  king  was  too  prone  to  exercise  his  power ; and  Its  resilits 
the  encouragement  he  had  received,  was  likely  to  ^rJpoUcy^f 
exalt  his  views  of  prerogative.  But  he  had  now  the  state- 
a minister  who  — with  higher  abilities  and  larger  views  of 
state  policy  — had  a will  even  stronger  than  his  Relationg  of 
own.  Throughout  his  reign,  it  had  been  the  ten-  Mr.  p^ittto 
dency  of  the  king’s  personal  administration  to  favor 
men  whose  chief  merit  was  their  subservience  to  his  own 
views,  instead  of  leaving  the  country  to  be  governed,  — as  a 
free  state  should  be  governed,  — by  its  ablest  and  most  pop- 
ular statesmen.1  He  had  only  had  one  other  minister  of  the 
same  lofty  pretensions,  — Lord  Chatham ; and  now,  while 
trusting  that  statesman’s  son, — sharing  his  councils,  and 
approving  his  policy,  — he  yielded  to  his  superior  intellect. 
Yet  were  the  Royal  predilections  not  without  influence  on 
the  minister.  Reared  in  the  Whig  school,  Mr.  Pitt  soon 
deserted  the  principles,  as  he  had  been  severed  from  the 
connections,  of  that  party.  He  had  been  raised  to  power  by 
royal  favor,  — maintained  in  it  by  prerogative,  — and  he  was 
now  in  the  ascendant,  by  having  made  common  cause  with 
the  Crown.  Hence  he  naturally  leant  towards  prerogative, 
and  Tory  principles  of  government.  His  contests  with  his 
great  antagonist,  Mr.  Fox,  and  the  Whig  party,  still  further 
alienated  him  from  the  principles  of  his  youth.  Until  the 

1 See  Lord  J.  Russell’s  Introd.  to  vol.  iii.  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford’s  Cor- 
respondence, pp.  l.-lxii. 

VOL.  I. 


6 


82 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


F rench  Revolution,  however,  his  policy  was  wise  and  liberal : 
but  from  that  time  his  rule  became  arbitrary,  and  opposed  to 
public  liberty.  And  such  were  his  talents,  and  such  the 
temper  of  the  times,  that  he  was  able  to  make  even  arbitrary 
principles  popular.  During  his  long  administration  the  peo- 
ple were  converted  to  Tory  principles,  and  encouraged  the 
king  and  the  minister  to  repress  liberty  of  thought,  and  to 
wage  war  against  opinion.  If  the  king  was  no  longer  his 
own  minister,  — as  in  the  time  of  Lord  North,  — he  had  the 
satisfaction  of  seeing  his  own  principles  carried  out  by  hands 
far  abler  than  his  own.  In  prosecutions  of  the  press,1  and 
the  repression  of  democratic  movements  at  home,2  the  min- 
ister was,  perhaps,  as  zealous  as  the  king : in  carrying  on 
war  to  crush  democracy  abroad,  the  king  was  more  zealous 
than  his  minister.  They  labored  strenuously  together  in 
support  of  monarchy  all  over  the  world ; and  respected  too 
little  the  constitutional  liberties  of  their  own  people. 

Nor  did  the  king  relax  his  accustomed  activity  in  public 
affairs.  From  the  close  of  the  American  War 
continued  ac-  until  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities  with  France, 
his  pleasure  was  taken  by  the  Secretary-at-War 
upon  every  commission  granted  in  the  army ; and  throughout 
Mr.  Pitt’s  administration,  — and,  indeed,  as  long  as  His  Maj- 
esty was  capable  of  attending  to  business,  — every  act  and 
appointment  was  submitted  to  him,  for  his  judgment  and 
approval.3 

And  if,  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Pitt,  the  king’s 
The  influence  independent  exercise  of  influence  was  somewhat 
of  the  crown  less  active,  the  power  of  the  Crown  itself,  — as 

augmented.  L 

wielded  jointly  by  himself  and  his  minister, — 
was  greater  than  at  any  former  period.  The  king  and  his 
minister  were  now  absolute.  A war  is  generally  favorable 
to  authority,  by  bringing  together  the  people  and  the  Gov- 

1 See  Chapter  VIII.,  Press  and  Liberty  of  Opinion. 

2 See  Chapter  IX.,  Liberty  of  the  Subject. 

8 Mr.  Wynn,  14th  April,  1812;  Hans.  Deb.,  xxii.  334. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


83 


ernment,  in  a common  cause  and  combined  exertions.  The 
French  War,  notwithstanding  its  heavy  burdens  and  nu- 
merous failures,  was  popular  on  account  of  the  principles 
it  was  supposed  to  represent ; and  the  vast  expenditure, 
if  it  distressed  the  people,  multiplied  the  patronage  of  the 
Crown,  — afforded  a rich  harvest  for  contractors,  — and 
made  the  fortunes  of  farmers  and  manufacturers,  by  raising 
the  price  of  every  description  of  produce.  The  “ moneyed 
classes  ” rallied  round  the  war  minister,  — bought  seats  in 
Parliament  with  their  sudden  gains,  — ranged  themselves 
in  a strong  phalanx  behind  their  leader,  — cheered  his 
speeches,  and  voted  for  him  on  every  division.  Their  zeal 
was  rewarded  with  peerages,  baronetcies,  patronage,  and  all 
the  good  things  which  an  inordinate  expenditure  enabled 
him  to  dispense.  For  years,  opposition  in  Parliament  to 
a minister  thus  supported,  was  an  idle  form ; and  if  beyond 
its  walls,  the  voice  of  complaint  was  raised,  the  arm  of  the 
law  was  strong  and  swift  to  silence  it.1  To  oppose  the  min- 
ister, had  become  high-treason  to  the  state. 

Great  as  was  the  king’s  confidence  in  a minister  so  pow- 
erful as  Mr.  Pitt,  yet  whenever  their  views  of  . . 

7 J m ' The  king  still 

policy  differed,  the  king’s  resolution  was  as  inflexi-  prepared  to 
ble  as  ever.  Nor  were  his  ministers  secure  from  ence  against 
the  exercise  of  his  personal  influence  against  them, 
when  he  was  pleased  to  use  it.  The  first  measure  on  which 
Mr.  Pitt  was  likely  to  encounter  objections  from  the  king, 
was  that  for  Parliamentary  Reform.  Having  pledged  him- 
self to  the  principles  of  such  a measure,  while  in  opposition, 
he  was  determined  not  to  be  unfaithful  to  them  now.  But 
before  he  ventured  to  bring  forward  his  plan,  he  prudently 
submitted  it  to  the  king,  and  deprecated  the  opposition  of 
the  court.  Writing,  on  the  20th  March,  1785,  the  king 
said,  Mr.  Pitt’s  “ letter  expressed  that  there  is  but  one  issue 
of  the  business  he  could  look  upon  as  fatal,  that  is,  the 
possibility  of  the  measure  being  rejected  by  the  weight  of 

1 See  Chapter  VIII.,  Press  and  Liberty  of  Opinion. 


84 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


those  who  are  supposed  to  be  connected  with  the  Govern- 
ment. Mr.  Pitt  must  recollect  that  though  I have  ever 
thought  it  unfortunate  that  he  had  early  engaged  himself  in 
this  measure,  he  ought  to  lay  his  thoughts  before  the  House; 
that  out  of  personal  regard  to  him  I would  avoid  giving  any 
opinion  to  any  one  on  the  opening  of  the  door  to  Parlia- 
mentary Reform,  except  to  him ; therefore  I am  certain 
Mr.  Pitt  cannot  suspect  my  having  influenced  any  one  on 
the  occasion.  If  others  choose,  for  base  ends,  to  impute 
such  a conduct  to  me,  I must  bear  it  as  former  false  sugges- 
tions.” 1 Pie  proceeded  to  say  that  every  man  ought  to  vote 
according  to  his  own  opinion ; and  warned  Mr.  Pitt  that 
“ there  are  questions  men  will  not,  by  friendship,  be  biassed 
to  adopt.”  This  incident  is  significant.  Mr.  Pitt  appre- 
hended the  exertion  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown  to  defeat 
his  measure.  The  king  was  aware  of  the  suspicions  attach- 
ing to  himself ; but  while  promising  not  to  interfere,  he 
could  not  refrain  from  intimating  that  the  measure  would  be 
defeated,  — as  indeed  it  was,  — without  his  interference. 

The  extent  to  wrhich  the  preponderating  influence  of  the 

Preponderat  ^rown  was  recognized  during  this  period,  is  ex- 

ing  influence  emplified  by  the  political  relations  of  parties  to  his 
of  the  Crown.  _ . _»  • n ttt  r 

Majesty  and  to  the  Prince  ot  Wales,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  king’s  illness  in  1788.2  At  that  time  ministers 
enjoyed  the  entire  confidence  of  the  king,  and  commanded 
an  irresistible  majority  in  Parliament ; yet  was  it  well  un- 
derstood by  both  parties,  that  the  first  act  of  the  Regent  would 
be  to  dismiss  his  father’s  ministers,  and  take  into  his  councils 
the  leaders  of  the  Opposition.3  Thus  even  the  party  which 
protested  against  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was  quite  pre- 
pared to  use  it,  and  by  its  aid  to  brave  a hostile  majority  in 
Parliament,  as  Mr.  Pitt  had  successfully  done  a few  years 
before. 

1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  40. 

2 See  Chapter  III. 

8 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  480. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


85 


At  length  Mr.  Pitt’s  fall  itself,  like  his  rise,  was  due  to  the 
king’s  personal  will;  and  was  brought  about  in  Mr.  Pitt’s  fail, 
the  same  way  as  many  previous  political  events,  by  irrespon- 
sible councils.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Pitt’s 
unbending  temper,  — increased  in  stubbornness  by  his  long- 
continued  supremacy  in  Parliament,  and  in  the  cabinet,  — 
had  become  distasteful  to  the  king.1  His  Majesty  loved 
power  at  least  as  much  as  his  minister,  and  was  tenacious 
of  his  authority,  even  over  those  in  whom  he  had  confi- 
dence. Mr.  Pitt’s  power  had  nearly  overshadowed  his  own ; 
and  there  were  not  wanting  opinions  amongst  friends  of  the 
king,  and  rivals  of  the  statesman,  that  the  latter  had  “ an 
overweening  ambition,  great  and  opiniative  presumption, 
and  perhaps  not  quite  constitutional  ideas  with  regard  to  the 
respect  and  attention  due  to  the  Crown.”  2 

While  this  feeling  existed  in  regard  to  Mr.  Pitt,  his  Maj- 
esty was  greatly  agitated  by  events  which  at  once  Catholic 
aroused  his  sensitive  jealousy  of  councils  to  which  Question, 
he  had  not  been  admitted,  and  his  conscientious 
scruples.  Mr.  Pitt  and  his  colleagues  thought  it  necessary 
to  inaugurate  the  Union  of  Ireland,  by  concessions  to  the 
Roman  Catholics  ; 3 and  had  been,  for  some  time,  deliberat- 
ing upon  a measure  to  effect  that  object.  Upon  this  ques- 
tion, the  king  had  long  entertained  a very  decided  m 4 . 

Opinion.  So  far  back  as  1795,  he  had  consulted  terminedop- 
Lord  Kenyon  as  to  the  obligations  of  his  coro-  p0Sltl0n 
nation  oath  ; and  though  his  lordship’s  opinions  were  not 
quite  decisive  upon  this  point,4  his  Majesty  was  persuaded 
that  he  was  morally  restrained,  by  that  oath,  from  assenting 

1 27th  Feb.,  1801.  11 1 was  told  this  evening,  by  Pelham,  that  his  Maj- 
esty had  for  a long  time  since  been  dissatisfied  with  Pitt’s,  and  particularly 
with  Lord  Grenville’s  1 authoritative  manners  ’ towards  him,  and  that  an 
alteration  in  his  ministry  had  long  been  in  his  mind.”  — Lord  Malmesbury' s 
Correspondence , iv.  24. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Correspondence,  iv.  35. 

3 See  Chapter  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty. 

4 They  were  published  by  Dr.  Phillpotts  (afterwards  Bishop  of  Exeter)  in 
1827. 


86 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


to  any  further  measures  for  the  relief  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics. Long  before  the  ministers  had  so  far  matured  their 
proposal  as  to  be  prepared  to  submit  it  for  his  Majesty’s  ap- 
proval, he  had  been  made  acquainted  with  their  intentions. 
In  September,  1800,  Lord  Loughborough  had  shown  him  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Pitt  upon  the  subject ; and  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  at  the  suggestion  of  Lord  Auckland,  had 
also  informed  the  king  that  a scheme  was  in  contemplation, 
which  was  represented  as  dangerous  to  the  Church.1  In 
December,  the  Lord  Chancellor  communicated  to  his  Maj- 
esty an  elaborate  paper  against  the  Roman  Catholic  claims  ; 2 
and  Dr.  Stuart,  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  — a son  of  the 
king’s  old  favorite,  Lord  Bute,  — increased  his  Majesty’s  re- 
pugnance to  the  measure  which  the  ministers  were  prepar- 
ing.3 The  king  immediately  took  counsel  with  some  of  the 
opponents  of  the  Catholic  claims ; and  wdthout  waiting  for 
any  communication  from  Mr.  Pitt,  lost  no  time  in  declaring 
his  own  opinion  upon  the  measure.  At  his  levee  on  the 
28th  January,  1801,  he  told  Mr.  Windham,  the  Secretary- 
at-War,  “ that  he  should  consider  any  person  who  voted  for 
it,  as  personally  indisposed  towards  him.” 4 On  the  same 
occasion  he  said  to  Mr.  Dundas,  “ I shall  reckon  any  man 
my  personal  enemy,  who  proposes  any  such  measure.  The 
most  Jacobinical  thing  I ever  heard  of ! ” 5 On  the  29th, 
he  wrote  to  Mr.  Addington,  the  Speaker,  desiring  him  to 
“ open  Mr.  Pitt’s  eyes  on  the  danger  arising  from  the  agitat- 

1 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  315;  Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  16,  17, 
22. 

2 Lord  Campbell’s  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,  vi.  306,  322,  et  seq. ; Rose’s 
Corresp.,  i.  299. 

3 Castlereagh’s  Corresp.,  iv.  83. 

4 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  2.  His  Lordship  in  relating  this  cir- 
cumstance, states  that  Pitt  had  communicated  the  measure  on  the  previous 
day;  but  it  appears  from  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  that  this  communication 
was  not  received  by  the  king  until  Sunday  the  1st  Feb.,  though  Lord  Gren- 
ville and  Mr.  Dundas  had  already  spoken  to  his  Majesty  upon  the  subject. 
— Life,  i.  285,  287. 

6 Wilberforce’s  Diary;  Life,  iii.  7;  Court  and  Cabinets  of  Geo.  III.,  iii. 
126 ; Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  280 ; Rose’s  Corresp.,  i.  303. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


87 


ing  this  improper  question.” 1 Mr.  Addington  undertook  this 
commission,  and  thought  he  had  dissuaded  Mr.  Pitt  from 
proceeding  with  a measure,  to  which  the  king  entertained 
insuperable  objections.2  But  if  at  first  inclined  to  yield, 
Mr.  Pitt,  after  consulting  the  cabinet  and  other  political 
friends,  determined  to  take  his  stand,  as  a responsible  minis- 
ter, upon  the  advice  he  was  about  to  tender  to  the  king. 

Mr.  Canning  is  said  to  have  advised  Mr.  Pitt  not  to  give 
way  on  this  occasion.  It  was  his  opinion,  “ that  for  several 
years  so  many  concessions  had  been  made,  and  so  many  im- 
portant measures  overruled,  from  the  king’s  opposition  to 
them,  that  Government  had  been  weakened  exceedingly ; 
and  if  on  this  particular  occasion  a stand  was  not  made, 
Pitt  would  retain  only  a nominal  power,  while  the  real  one 
would  pass  into  the  hands  of  those  who  influenced  the  king’s 
mind  and  opinion,  out  of  sight.”  3 

Whether  sharing  this  opinion  or  not,  Mr.  Pitt  himself 
was  too  deeply  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  Mr.  Pitt  re- 
the  measure,  and  perhaps  too  much  committed  to  don  it%ndn" 
the  Catholics,  to  withdraw  it.  It  appears,  how-  resigns’ 
ever,  that  he  might  have  been  induced  to  give  way,  if  he 
could  have  obtained  an  assurance  from  his  Majesty,  that 
ministers  should  not  be  opposed  by  the  king’s  friends  in 
Parliament.4  On  the  1st  February,  he  made  the  formal 
communication  to  the  king,  which  his  Majesty  had,  for  sev- 
eral days,  been  expecting.  The  king  had  been  aware  of 
Mr.  Pitt’s  determination  before  he  received  this  letter/and 
had  wished  Mr.  Addington,  even  then,  to  form  a new  ad- 
ministration. By  Mr.  Addington’s  advice  a kind  but  most 
unbending  answer  was  returned  to  Mr.  Pitt,  in  which  his 
Majesty  declared  that  a “principle  of  duty  must  prevent 
him  from  discussing  any  proposition  tending  to  destroy  the 

1 The  king  to  Mr.  Addington;  Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  286,  287. 

2 Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  287. 

3 Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  5. 

4 Rose’s  Corresp.,  i.  394,  399. 


88 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


groundwork  of  our  happy  constitution.”  1 The  intensity  of 
the  king’s  feeling  on  the  subject  was  displayed  by  what  he 
said,  about  this  time,  to  the  Duke  of  Portland  : “ Were  he 
to  agree  to  it,  he  should  betray  his  trust,  and  forfeit  his 
crown  ; that  it  might  bring  the  framers  of  it  to  the  gibbet.” 
His  trusty  counsellor  replied  : “ he  was  sure  the  king  had 
rather  suffer  martyrdom,  than  submit  to  this  measure.”  2 In 
vain  did  Mr.  Addington  endeavor  to  accommodate  these  dif- 
ferences. Mr.  Pitt,  being  as  inflexible  as  the  king,  re- 
signed ; and  Mr.  Addington  was  intrusted  with  the  task  of 
forming  an  anti-Catholic  administration ; while  an  active 
canvass  was  undertaken  by  the  courtiers  against  the  Cath- 
olic cause,  as  a matter  personal  to  the  king  himself.3 

Mr.  Pitt  has  been  justly  blamed  for  having  so  long  con- 
cealed his  intentions  from  the  king.  His  Majesty 
mismanage-  himself  complained  to  Lord  Grenville,  that  the 
Catholic  question  had  been  under  consideration  since  the 
question.  month  0f  August,  though  never  communicated  to 
him  till  Sunday,  the  1st  February ; and  stated  his  own  be- 
lief, that  if  the  unfortunate  cause  of  disunion  had  been 
openly  mentioned  to  him  “ in  the  beginning,  he  should  have 
been  able  to  avert  it  entirely.”  4 Whether  this  delay  arose, 
as  Lord  Malmesbury  has  suggested,  “either  from  indo- 
lence,” or  from  want  of  a “ sufficient  and  due  attention  to 
the  king’s  pleasure,”  5 it  was  assuredly  a serious  error  of 
judgment.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  maintained  that  it  was 
Mr.  Pitt’s  duty  to  take  his  Majesty’s  pleasure,  before  any 
bill  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  cabinet ; but  his  reticence, 

1 The  king  to  Mr.  Pitt,  1st  Feb.,  1801;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  291.  All 
the  correspondence  between  the  king  and  Mr.  Pitt  is  published  in  Dr.  Phill- 
potts’s  Pamphlet,  1827,  and  in  the  Quarterly  Review,  xxxvi.  290,  and  part 
of  it  in  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life;  Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  286,  et  seq .,  303,  309. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  46. 

8 Ibid.,  iv.  6;  Castlereagh’s  Corresp.,  iv.  34;  Court  and  Cabinets  of  Geo. 
III.,  iii.  128;  Mem.  of  Fox,  iii.  252;  Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  85,  &c. 

4 King  to  Lord  Sidmouth,  Feb.  7th;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  298. 

6 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  2. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


89 


upon  the  general  question,  aroused  the  suspicions  of  the 
king,  and  gave  those  who  differed  from  the  minister  an 
opportunity  of  concerting  an  opposition  at  court.1 

Resolute  as  was  Mr.  Pitt  on  this  occasion,  yet  being 
deeply  affected,  a few  weeks  afterwards,  by  hear-  ffig  subse_ 
imr  that  the  king  had  imputed  his  illness  to  the  fiuent  pledge 

° . . , ..  not  to  revive. 

recent  conduct  of  his  minister,  he  conveyed  an 
assurance  to  his  Majesty,  that  he  would  not  revive  the  Cath- 
olic question.2 

Mr.  Addington  enjoyed  the  confidence,  and  even  the 
affection  of  the  king,  whose  correspondence  at  The  king’s 
this  period  resembles,  — both  in  its  minute  at-  Mr  fiAdding-m 
tention  to  every  department  of  business,  foreign  ton* 
or  domestic,3  and  in  its  terms  of  attachment  — his  letters 
to  his  former  favorite,  Lord  North.4 

The  king  was  rejoiced  to  find  himself  free  from  the  re- 
straints which  the  character  and  position  of  Mr.  Pitt  had 
imposed  upon  him  ; and  delighted  to  honor  the  minister  of  his 
own  choice,  — who  shared  his  feelings  and  opinions,  — who 
consulted  him  on  all  occasions,  — whose  amiable  character 
and  respectful  devotion  touched  his  heart,  — and  whose  in- 

1 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  2;  Rose’s  Corresp.,  i.  308. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  34;  Gifford’s  Life  of  Pitt,  vi.  599; 
Rose’s  Correspondence,  i.  394. 

3 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  365,  387,  395,  410,  411. 

4 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  301,  303.  On  the  13th  Feb.,  1801,  the  king 
writes:  “I  mean  to  have  his  affection  as  well  as  his  zeal.”  — Ibid.,  305. 
On  the  5th  March,  he  writes : “The  king  cannot  find  words  sufficiently 
expressive  of  his  Majesty’s  cordial  approbation  of  the  whole  arrangements 
which  his  own  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  has  wisely,  and  his  Majesty 
chooses  to  add,  most  correctly  recommended.”  — Ibid.,  353.  Again,  on  the 
19th  May,  and  on  other  occasions,  he  terms  Mr.  Addington  “ his  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer.”  — Ibid.,  394.  Sometimes  he  addresses  him  as  “My 
dear  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.” — Ibid.,  395.  On  the  14th  June,  he 
writes : “ The  king  is  highly  gratified  at  the  repeated  marks  of  the  sensi- 
bility of  Mr.  Addington’s  heart,  which  must  greatly  add  to  the  comfort  of 
having  placed  him  with  so  much  propriety  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury. 
He  trusts  their  mutual  affection  can  only  cease  with  their  lives.”  — Ibid., 
408.  On  the  8th  July,  he  writes:  “The  messenger  who  returned  from 
Cuffnals,  agreeable  to  order,  called  at  Winchester  that  Mr.  Addington 
might  hear  of  his  son.”  — Ibid.,  428. 


90 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


tellect  was  not  so  commanding  as  to  overpower  and  subdue 
his  own. 

But  this  administration,  — formed  under  circumstances  un- 
Mr  Pitt  re  favorable  to  its  stability,  and  beset,  from  its  very 
stored  to  pow- commencement,  with  jealousies  and  intrigues,1  — 

’ ' after  concluding  a peace  with  France,  prepared 

the  way,  in  less  than  three  years,  for  Mr.  Pitt’s  restoration 
to  power.  It  was  not  without  reluctance  that  the  king  found 
himself  obliged  to  part  with  his  favorite  minister,  and  to  sub- 
mit himself  again  to  the  loftier  temper  of  Mr.  Pitt : but  he 
was  convinced  of  the  impracticability  of  upholding  any  longer 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Addington.2 

Mr.  Pitt  urged  upon  the  king  the  necessity  of  forming  a 
The  king’s  re  strong  government,  by  a union  with  Lord  Grenville 
fusai  to  admit  and  Mr.  Fox;  but  such  was  his  Majesty’s  repug- 
nance to  the  latter,  that  he  absolutely  refused  to 
admit  him  into  the  cabinet.3  So  inveterate  was  his  aversion 
to  this  statesman,  — aggravated,  at  this  period,  by  mental 
disorder,  — that  he  afterwards  declared  “ that  he  had  taken 
a positive  determination  not  to  admit  Mr.  Fox  into  his  coun- 
cils, even  at  the  hazard  of  a civil  war .”4  Mr.  Fox  being 
proscribed,  the  Opposition  would  listen  to  no  propositions  for 
an  arrangement ; 5 and  Mr.  Pitt  was  obliged  to  place  himself 
at  the  head  of  an  administration,  weak  in  talents  as  well  as  in 
parliamentary  support. 

Meanwhile,  Mr.  Addington  took  up  a position  in  the  House 
Lord  Sid  Commons,  as  leader  of  the  “ king’s  friends,” 

mouth’s^-  — a party  numbering  sixty  or  seventy  members.6 
king  and  the  He  was  still  supposed  to  be  in  communication 
with  the  king ; 7 and  his  supporters  were  some- 

1 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  335-340 ; ii.  107, 117,  &c.  &c. ; Lord  Malmes- 
bury’s Corresp.,  iv.  36,  40,  42,  49,  91,  97,  102,  167,  297,  &c.  &c.;  Rose’s 
Corresp.,  i.  292,  317,  329,  449;  ii.  52. 

2 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  437-450.  See  also  infra,  p.  170. 

3 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  446-450;  Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  118,  122. 

4 Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  156,  182. 

5 Ibid.,  124-126;  Court  and  Cabinets  of  Geo.  III.,  iii.  352;  Mem.  of  Fox, 
iv.  53. 

6 Rose’s  Corr.,  119. 


7 Ibid.,  141. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


91 


times  ranged  against  the  Government.1  He  professed  per- 
sonal adherence  to  the  king  to  be  the  rule  of  his  political 
conduct.  Writing  soon  after  his  retirement  from  office,  he 
says : “ I shall  keep  aloof  from  all  parties,  adhere  to  the  king , 
and  take  a course  that  I can  conscientiously  justify  to  my- 
self/’ 2 His  attitude  was  so  formidable,  that  Mr.  Pitt  was 
soon  obliged  to  admit  him  and  his  followers  to  a share  of  the 
government.3  The  king  earnestly  desired  his  union  with 
Mr.  Pitt,4 5  which  the  renewal  of  friendly  intercourse  between 
them  easily  brought  about.  He  accordingly  joined  the  ad- 
ministration, as  Viscount  Sidmouth,  and  President  of  the 
Council ; and  induced  his  friends,  who  had  been  lately  voting 
against  the  Government,  to  lend  it  their  parliamentary  sup- 
port. But  being  dissatisfied  with  the  share  of  influence  con- 
ceded to  himself  and  his  allies  in  the  cabinet,  he  shortly 
afterwards  threatened  to  resign.6  And  when,  on  the  im- 
peachment of  Lord  Melville,  Mr.  Hiley  Addington,  and  Mr. 
Bond,  who  had  been  promised  places,  spoke  and  voted 
against  the  Government,  differences  arose  between  himself 
and  Mr.  Pitt,  which  led  to  his  resignation.6 

Meanwhile,  the  only  matter  on  which  Mr.  Pitt  and  the 
king  were  at  variance,  was  not  suffered  again  to  Evasion  of  the 
disturb  their  friendly  relations.  Mr.  Pitt  had  re-  Q^tion  by 
newed  the  assurance  which  he  had  given  the  king  Mr*  pitt- 
in  1801,  that  he  would  not  revive  the  question  of  Catholic 
emancipation,  during  his  Majesty’s  life.7  Not  satisfied  with 
this  assurance,  the  king  required  “ an  explicit  declaration  that 
he  would  never , at  any  time,  agitate  or  support  the  question 
of  Catholic  emancipation,  or  the  repeal  of  the  Test  Act.”  8 
This  latter  pledge  Mr.  Pitt,  it  would  seem,  contrived  to 

1 Rose’s  Corr.,  153. 

2 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  315. 

3 Court  and  Cabinets  of  Geo.  III.,  iii.  388;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  325, 
348. 

4 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii. 

5 Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  358,  360-364. 

6 Ibid.,  368-375.  ? Ibid.,  114, 157-174. 


8 Ibid.,  117. 


92 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


evade ; 1 but  he  was  careful  to  avoid  the  forbidden  ground, 
and  was  even  obliged  to  oppose  others  who  ventured  to  tres- 
pass upon  it.2  Though  Mr.  Pitt  recovered  the  king’s  confi- 
dence, his  Majesty  continued  to  form  his  own  independent 
opinions,  and  to  exercise  a large  influence  in  the  government 
and  patronage  of  the  State.3 

The  death  of  Mr.  Pitt,  in  the  midst  of  defeats,  and  disas- 
ters to  the  European  cause  in  which  he  was  en- 

Grenville 

ministry,  gaged,  once  more  forced  upon  the  king  an  admin- 
istration, formed  from  a party  in  whom  he  had  no 
confidence.  It  was  necessary  to  accept  the  ministry  of  “ all 
the  talents,”  under  Lord  Grenville  and  Mr.  Fox ; 4 and  per- 
sonal intercourse  soon  overcame  the  king’s  antipathy  to  the 
latter.5  Lord  Sidmouth  having  a strong  body  of  parliamen- 
tary friends,  who,  to  use  the  words  of  his  biographer,  “ con- 
stituted a species  of  armed  neutrality,  far  too  powerful  to  be 
safely  overlooked,”  and  being  “ understood  to  enjoy  the  favor 
and  confidence  of  the  king,  and  to  be  faithfully  devoted  to 
his  Majesty’s  interests,” 6 was  induced  to  join  a party  with 
whom  he  had  neither  connection,  nor  political  sympathies. 
The  king’s  friends  were  not  to  be  neglected,  and  were  amply 
provided  for.7  Lord  Sidmouth  himself,  66  not  wishing  to  ex- 
cite jealousy  by  very  frequent  intercourse  with  the  king,” 
declined  the  Presidency  of  the  Council,  and  accepted  the  less 
prominent  office  of  Privy  Seal.8 

1 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  464. 

2 Hans.  Pari.  Deb.,  v.  1013 ; see  also  Chap.  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religions 
Liberty. 

3 Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  122,  124,  141,  158, 160.  Mr.  Pitt  was  anxious  that 
his  friend  and  biographer,  Dr.  Tomline,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  should  be  pro- 
moted to  the  See  of  Canterbury ; but  the  king  insisted  upon  appointing  Dr. 
Manners  Sutton,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  notwithstanding  all  the  solicitations 
of  his  minister.  — Bose's  Corresp.,  ii.  82-91,  &c. 

4 Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  236. 

5 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  510. 

6 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  412. 

7 Ibid.,  424. 

3 Ibid.,  416;  Mr.  Abbot’s  Diary,  424.  On  the  death  of  Mr.  Fox  he  be- 
came President  of  the  Council. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


93 


As  there  was  a difficulty  in  admitting  any  of  Lord  Sid- 
mouth’s  political  friends  to  the  cabinet,  Lord  Ellen-  Admission  of 
borough,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  borough^" 
King’s  Bench,  was  associated  with  him,  in  order  to  the  cabinet- 
give  weight  to  his  counsels.1  This  arrangement  was  open  to 
grave  constitutional  objections.  It  had  been  the  policy  of  our 
laws  to  render  the  judges  independent  of  the  Crown  ;2  and 
now  the  first  criminal  judge  became  one  of  its  confidential 
advisers.  Though  the  appointment  was  successfully  defended 
in  Parliament,  where  the  precedent  of  Lord  Mansfield  was 
much  relied  on,  it  was  generally  condemned  by  public  opin- 
ion, and  no  similar  appointment  has  since  been  made.3 

Before  the  new  ministry  was  completed,  the  king  was 
alarmed  at  a supposed  invasion  of  his  preroga-  Differetlce 
tive.  On  the  1st  February,  Lord  Grenville  pro- with  the  king 

. . on  the  admin- 

pOSed  to  his  Majesty  some  changes  in  the  ad-  istration  of 
ministration  of  the  army,  by  which  the  question  the  army' 
was  raised  whether  the  army  should  be  under  the  immediate 
control  of  the  Crown,  through  the  Commander-in-Chief,  or 
be  subject  to  the  supervision  of  ministers.  The  king  at  once 
said  that  the  management  of  the  army  rested  with  the  Crown 
alone  ; and  that  he  could  not  permit  his  ministers  to  interfere 
with  it,  beyond  the  levying  of  the  troops,  their  pay  and  cloth- 
ing. Lord  Grenville  was  startled  at  such  a doctrine,  which 
he  conceived  to  be  entirely  unconstitutional,  and  to  which  he 
would  have  refused  to  submit.  For  some  time  it  was  be- 
lieved that  the  pending  ministerial  arrangements  would  be 
broken  off;  but  on  the  following  day  Lord  Grenville  pre- 
sented a minute  to  his  Majesty,  stating  that  no  changes  in 

1 Wilberforce’s  Life,  iii.  256.  Lord  Rous  said : “ Lord  Sidmouth,  with 
Lord  Ellenborough  by  his  side,  put  him  in  mind  of  a faithful  old  steward 
with  his  mastiff,  watching  new  servants,  lest  they  should  have  some  evil 
designs  against  the  old  family  mansion.”  — Lord  Sidmouth' s Life , ii.  417. 

2 13  Will.  III.  c.  32;  1 Geo.  III.  c.  23. 

3 Hans.  Deb.,  vi.  308;  Lord  Campbell’s  Lives  of  Chief  Justices,  ii.  451; 
Lives  of  the  Chancellors,  vi.  584;  Lord*  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  417;  Chapter 
on  Administration  of  Justice. 


94 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


the  management  of  the  army  should  be  effected  without  his 
Majesty’s  approbation.1  To  the  doctrine  thus  amended, 
there  could  be  no  reasonable  objection,  and  the  king  as- 
sented to  it. 

The  Grenville  ministry  fell,  like  that  of  Mr.  Pitt  in  1801, 
D ff  g by  proposing  a measure  affecting  the  king’s  relig- 
with  the  king  ious  scruples.  As  all  the  circumstances  regarding 
andNavy  Ser^  this  measure  will  be  described  elsewhere,2  it  is 
vice  Bill.  sufficient  here  to  say  that  on  proposing  the  Army 
and  Navy  Service  Bill,  — by  which  some  of  the  disqualifica- 
tions of  officers  in  the  army  and  navy,  being  Roman  Cath- 
olics and  Dissenters,  were  removed,  — the  ministers  either 
neglected  to  explain  its  provisions  with  sufficient  distinctness 
to  the  king,  or  failed  to  make  themselves  understood.  After 
the  bill  had  been  introduced,  as  they  believed,  with  his 
“reluctant  assent,”  his  Majesty’s  distaste  for  it  became  in- 
flamed into  violent  disapprobation.  To  propose  such  a meas- 
ure at  all,  was  a strange  indiscretion.  Knowing  the  king’s 
repugnance  to  every  concession  to  the  Catholics,  they  might 
have  profited  by  the  experience  of  Mr.  Pitt.  The  Chancel- 
lor foresaw  the  danger  they  were  incurring,  and  with  Lord 
Ellenborough  and  Lord  Sidmouth,  protested  against  the 
measure.  The  friends  of  the  Government  called  it  an  act 
of  suicide.3 

The  king’s  friends,  and  the  opponents  of  the  ministry, 
Activity  of  ^ not  neglect  this  favorable  opportunity  of 
thekmg’s  turning  his  Majesty’s  well-known  religious  scru- 

ples to  account ; but  soon  directed  his  personal 
influence  against  his  ministers.  On  the  4th  March,  Lord 
Sidmouth  “apprised  his  Majesty  of  the  nature  and  details 
of  the  measure ; ” 4 said  he  should  himself  oppose  it ; and 
soon  afterwards  tendered  his  resignation  to  Lord  Gren- 

1 Ann.  Reg.,  1806,  26;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  416. 

2 Chapter  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty. 

8 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  iv.  381-384. 

4 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  459-462. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CKOWN. 


95 


ville.  On  the  12th,  the  Duke  of  Portland  wrote  to  the 
king,  expressing  his  belief  that  the  measure  had  not  re- 
ceived his  Majesty’s  consent,  and  that  it  could  be  defeated 
in  the  House  of  Lords.  “ But  for  this  purpose,”  said  his 
grace,  “ I must  fairly  state  to  your  Majesty,  that  your  wishes 
must  be  distinctly  known,  and  that  your  present  ministers 
should  not  have  any  pretext  for  equivocating  upon  the  sub- 
ject, or  any  ground  whatever  to  pretend  ignorance  of  your 
Majesty’s  sentiments  and  determination,  not  only  to  withhold 
your  sanction  from  the  present  measure,  but  to  use  all  your 
influence  in  resisting  it.”  1 Writing  on  the  same  day,  his 
grace  said  : “ His  Majesty  has  signified  his  orders  to  my 
nephews,  Lords  George  and  James  Thynne,  to  vote  against 
it.”  2 On  the  following  day  a person  came  to  Lord  Malmes- 
bury from  the  Queen’s  house,  authorized  to  say,  “ that  his 
Majesty’s  wishes,  sentiments,  and  intentions,  respecting  every 
measure  which  may  lead  to  alter  the  legal  restrictions  the 
Catholics  are  liable  to,  are  invariably  the  same  as  they  al- 
ways have  been,  and  always  will  be  so.”  3 The  king  himself 
also  intimated  to  Lord  Grenville,  that  “ he  should  certainly 
think  it  right  to  make  it  known  that  his  sentiments  were 
against  the  measure.”4 

Hence  it  appears  that  courtiers  and  intriguing  statesmen 
were  still  as  ready  as  they  had  been  twenty-five  years  before, 
to  influence  the  king  against  his  ministers,  and  to  use  his 
name  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  measures  in  Parliament ; 
while  the  king  himself  was  not  more  scrupulous  in  commit- 
ting himself  to  irregular  interference  with  the  freedom  of 
parliamentary  deliberations.  On  this  occasion,  however, 
opposition  to  the  ministry  in  Parliament  by  the  Withdrawal 
king’s  friends,  was  averted  by  the  withdrawal  of  ?f  the  °hnox- 
the  measure.  On  announcing  its  abandonment 

1 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Corresp.,  v.  369. 

2 Ibid.,  371. 

3 Ibid.,  373. 

4 Letter  to  Mr.  T.  Grenville,  14th  March,  1807  (Court  and  Cabinets  of 
Geo.  III.,  iv.  135). 


96 


REIGN-  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


to  the  king,  the  ministers  committed  a second  indiscretion. 
Pledge  pro  They  reserved  to  themselves,  by  a minute  of  the 
posed  by^the  cabinet,  the  right  of  openly  avowing  their  senti- 
movai  of  the  ments,  should  the  Catholic  Petition  be  presented, 
and  of  submitting  to  his  Majesty,  from  time  to 
time,  such  measures  as  they  might  deem  it  advisable  to 
propose.1  The  king  not  only  desired  them  to  withdraw  this 
part  of  the  minute,  but  demanded  from  them  a written  dec- 
laration that  they  would  never,  under  any  circumstances, 
propose  to  him  further  concessions  to  the  Catholics,  or  even 
offer  him  advice  upon  the  subject.2  To  such  a pledge  it  was 
impossible  for  constitutional  ministers  to  submit.  They  were 
responsible  for  all  public  measures,  and  for  the  good  govern- 
ment of  the  country ; and  yet,  having  abandoned  a measure 
which  they  had  already  proposed,  they  were  now  called  upon 
to  fetter  their  future  discretion,  and  to  bind  themselves  irrev- 
ocably to  a policy  which  they  thought  dangerous  to  the 
peace  of  Ireland.  The  king  could  scarcely  have  expected 
such  submission.  The  ministers  refused  the  pledge,  and  the 
king  proceeded  to  form  a new  administration  under  Mr.  Per- 
ceval. He  had  regarded  this  contest  with  his  ministers  as 
44  a struggle  for  his  throne ; ” saying,  44  he  must  be  the  Prot- 
estant king  of  a Protestant  country,  or  no  king.”3 

In  the  Commons,  the  dismissal  of  the  Government  on 
Proceedings  these  grounds,  and  the  constitutional  dangers  in- 
moSfo^the  solved  in  such  an  exercise  of  the  prerogative,  did 
Sn?ftryf  not  Pass  wkhout  animadversion.  On  the  9th 
18°7.  April,  Mr.  Brand  moved  a resolution,  44  That  it  is 

contrary  to  the  first  duties  of  the  confidential  servants  of  th 
Crown  to  restrain  themselves  by  any  pledge,  expressed  or 
implied,  from  offering  to  the  king  any  advice  which  the 
course  of  circumstances  may  render  necessary  for  the  welfare 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  231-247 ; Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  ii.  463 ; Lord  Malmes- 
bury’s Corresp.,  iv.  380;  Rose’s  Corresp.,  ii.  321-327. 

2 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  243;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  464;  Rose’s  Correspond- 
ence, ii.  328-331. 

8 Twiss’s  Life  of  Lord  Eldon,  ii.  34. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


97 


and  security  of  the  empire.”  In  the  debate  it  was  argued, 
that  as  the  king  was  not  responsible  by  law,  if  the  ministers 
should  also  claim  to  be  absolved  from  responsibility,  by 
reason  of  pledges  given  to  the  king,  there  would  be  no  secu- 
rity for  the  people  against  the  evils  of  bad  government. 
Had  the  ministers  agreed  to  such  a pledge,  they  would  have 
violated  their  oaths  as  privy-councillors,  and  the  king  would 
have  become  absolute.  To  what  dangers  would  the  country 
be  exposed  if  ministers  might  bind  themselves  to  give  such 
advice  only  as  should  be  agreeable  to  the  sovereign  ? 1 Nor 
did  the  conduct  of  secret  advisers  escape  notice,  who  had 
counteracted  the  measures  of  the  public  and  responsible 
advisers  of  the  Crown.2  On  the  other  side  it  was  con- 
tended that  the  stipulation  proposed  by  the  ministers,  of 
being  at  liberty  to  support  in  debate  a measure  which  they 
had  withdrawn,  — and  of  which  the  king  disapproved,  — 
was  unconstitutional,  as  tending  to  place  the  king  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  Parliament,  — an  evil  which  was  ordina- 
rily avoided  by  the  ministers  refraining  from  supporting  any 
measure  to  which  the  king  might  hereafter  have  to  give  his 
veto . The  late  ministers  were  even  charged  with  having, 
in  the  explanation  of  the  causes  of  their  retirement,  ar- 
raigned their  sovereign  at  the  bar  of  Parliament.3  Mr. 
Perceval  denied  that  the  king  had  conferred  with  any  secret 
advisers  until  after  the  ministers  were  dismissed ; and  said 
that,  in  requiring  the  pledge,  he  had  acted  without  any  ad- 
vice whatever.  The  ministers,  he  declared,  had  brought 
upon  themselves  the  pledge  proposed  by  the  king,  which 
would  never  have  been  suggested,  had  they  not  desired  to 
impose  conditions  upon  his  Majesty. 

Sir  Samuel  Romilly  went  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  if 
ministers  had  subscribed  such  a pledge,  they  would  have 

1 See  also  Chapter  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religions  Liberty. 

2 Mr.  Plunkett,  Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  312. 

3 General  Craufurd,  Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  299;  Mr.  Perceval,  ib .,  316;  Mr. 
Bathurst,  ib .,  331;  Mr.  Canning,  ib.,  342. 

VOL.  i.  7 


98 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


been  guilty  of  a high  crime  and  misdemeanor.1  With  regard 
to  Mr.  Perceval’s  statement,  that  the  king  had  acted  without 
advice,  Sir  Samuel  said,  that  there  could  be  no  exercise  of 
prerogative  in  which  the  king  was  without  some  adviser. 
He  might  seek  the  counsels  of  any  man,  however  objection- 
able ; but  that  man  would  be  responsible  for  the  advice 
given,  and  for  the  acts  of  the  Crown.  There  was  no  con- 
stitutional doctrine  more  important  than  this,  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Crown.  “ History  had  unfolded  the  evils  of  a 
contrary  principle  having  prevailed.”  It  was  also  well  ob- 
served by  Mr.  Whitbread,  that  the  avowal  of  ministers  that 
the  king  had  acted  without  advice,  amounted  to  a declaration 
on  their  part,  that  they  disowned  the  responsibility  of  the 
act  complained  of,  and  left  his  Majesty  to  bear  the  blame  of 
it  himself,  without  that  protection  which  the  constitution  had 
provided  : but  that  from  this  responsibility  they  could  not 
escape  ; for  by  accepting  office,  they  had  assumed  the  re- 
sponsibility which  they  had  shown  so  much  anxiety  to  avoid. 

But  Lord  Howick  denied  that  the  king  had  acted  without 
advice,  and  asserted  that  there  had  been  secret  advisers,  who 
had  taken  pains  to  poison  the  royal  mind.2  On  the  Satur- 
day before  the  pledge  had  been  required,  Lord  Eldon  had  an 
audience  ; and  both  Lord  Eldon  and  Lord  Hawkesbury  were 
consulted  by  the  king,  before  measures  were  taken  for  form- 
ing a new  administration.  They  were,  therefore,  the  king’s 
responsible  advisers.  In  answer  to  these  allegations,  Mr. 
Canning  stated  that  Lord  Eldon’s  visit  to  Windsor  had  taken 
place  on  Saturday  se’nnight,  preceding  the  change  of  minis- 
try ; that  it  had  reference  to  a matter  of  extreme  delicacy, 
unconnected  with  these  events,  and  that  before  he  went, 
Lord  Eldon  had  explained  to  Lord  Grenville  the  object  of 
his  visit,  and  promised  to  mention  no  other  subject  to  his 
Majesty.8  He  added,  that  the  Duke  of  Portland,  Mr.  Per- 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  327. 

2 Ibid.,  339. 

8 Lord  Eldon  himself  expressly  denied  having  had  any  communication 
with  the  king  on  the  Catholic  Question,  or  the  ministers.  — Twiss's  Life , 
ii.  36-38. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


99 


ceval,  and  himself,  had  endeavored  to  prevent  the  separation 
between  the  late  ministers  and  the  king,  by  amicable  expla- 
nations. Mr.  Canning  concluded  by  saying,  that  the  minis- 
ters were  “ determined  to  stand  by  their  sovereign,  even 
though  circumstances  should  occur  in  which  they  may  find 
it  their  duty  to  appeal  to  the  country.” 1 In  answer  to  this 
threat,  Lord  Henry  Petty  said  that  a great  constitutional 
wrong  had  been  done,  and  that  no  such  intimidation  would 
induce  the  House  to  refrain  from  expressing  their  sense  of 
it.  This  motion  had  been  met  by  one  for  reading  the  other 
orders  of  the  day,  and  the  latter  was  carried  by  a majority 
of  thirty-two.2  The  Opposition  were  so  little  prepared  for 
this  result,  that,  during  the  division,  Lord  Howick  addressed 
the  members  in  the  lobby,  and  said  that  being  nearly  certain 
of  a majority,3  they  must  follow  up  their  success  with  “ an 
address  to  the  throne,  to  meet  the  threat  which  had  been 
thrown  out  that  evening,  — a threat  unexampled  in  the  an- 
nals of  Parliament.” 4 The  House  adjourned  at  half-past 
six  in  the  morning. 

On  the  13th  April,  a discussion  was  raised  in  the  House 
of  Lords  upon  a motion  to  the  same  effect,  pro-  proceedings 
posed  by  the  Marquess  of  Stafford.5  The  most  m the  Lords’ 
remarkable  speech  was  that  of  Lord  Erskine,  who  had  al- 
ready expressed  his  opinions  on  the  subject,  to  the  king  him- 
self.6 Not  being  himself,  on  account  of  religious  scruples, 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  346.  According  to  Sir  S.  Romilly,  Mr.  Canning  s$id, 
“ he  had  made  up  his  mind,  when  the  Catholic  Bill  was  first  mentioned,  to 
vote  for  it  if  the  king  was  for  it,  and  against  it  if  the  king  was  against  it. 
Every  art  was  used  to  interest  persons  for  the  king ; his  age  was  repeatedly 
mentioned,  his  pious  scruples,  his  regard  for  his  coronation  oath,  which 
some  members  did  not  scruple  to  say  would  have  been  violated  if  the  bill 
had  passed.”  — Romilly' s Life , ii.  194. 

2 Ayes,  258;  Noes,  226. 

3 A majority  of  twenty  was  expected.  — Romilly' s Life , ii.  195. 

4 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  348.  It  was  intended  to  follow  up  this  motion,  if  car- 
ried, by  resolutions  expressing  want  of  confidence  in  the  ministers.  — Rom- 
illy's Life , ii.  194. 

5 It  embraced  all  the  words  of  Mr.  Brand’s  motion,  but  prefixed  a pre- 
amble. 

3 Romilly’s  Life,  ii.  188. 


100 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


favorable  to  the  Catholic  claims,  he  yet  ridiculed  the  argu- 
ment that  the  king  had  been  restrained  by  his  coronation 
oath,  from  assenting  to  the  late  measure.  He  had  assented 
to  the  Act  of  1793,  which  admitted  Catholic  majors  and 
colonels  to  the  army,  without  perjury  ; — how  then  could  his 
oath  be  violated  by  the  admission  of  staff-officers  ? On  the 
question  of  the  pledge  he  asked,  “ Is  it  consistent  writh  the 
laws  and  customs  of  the  realm  that  the  king  shall  make  a 
rule  for  his  own  conduct,  which  his  councillors  shall  not 
break  in  upon,  to  disturb  with  their  advice  ? ” If  it  were, 
“ the  king,  instead  of  submitting  to  be  advised  by  his  coun- 
cillors, might  give  the  rule  himself  as  to  what  he  will  be 
advised  in,  until  those  who  are  solemnly  sworn  to  give  full 
and  impartial  counsel,  and  who  are  responsible  to  the  public 
for  their  conduct  as  his  advisers,  might  be  penned  up  in  a 
corner  of  their  duties  and  jurisdiction,  and  the  state  might 
go  to  ruin.” 

Again,  as  to  the  personal  responsibility  of  the  king,  he 
laid  it  down  that  “ the  king  can  perform  no  act  of  govern- 
ment himself,  and  no  man  ought  to  be  received  within  the 
walls  of  this  House,  to  declare  that  any  act  of  Government 
has  proceeded  from  the  private  will  and  determination,  or 
conscience  of  the  king.  The  king,  as  chief  magistrate,  can 
have  no  conscience  which  is  not  in  the  trust  of  responsible 
subjects.  When  he  delivers  the  seals  of  office  to  his  officers 
of  state,  his  conscience,  as  it  regards  the  state,  accompanies 
them.”  “ No  act  of  state  or  government  can,  therefore,  be 
the  king’s : he  cannot  act  but  by  advice  ; and  he  who  holds 
office  sanctions  what  is  done,  from  whatever  source  it  may 
proceed.” 1 

By  Lord  Harrowby  the  motion  was  represented  as  plac- 
ing the  House  in  the  situation  u of  sitting  in  judgment  upon 
the  personal  conduct  of  their  sovereign.”  But  perhaps  the 
best  position  for  the  Crown  was  that  assumed  by  the  Earl 
of  Selkirk.  The  king,  he  said,  could  not  be  accountable  to 
1 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  355-365. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


101 


Parliament  for  his  conduct  in  changing  his  advisers,  and  the 
proposed  pledge  was  merely  a motive  for  such  a change, 
beyond  the  reach  of  parliamentary  investigation. 

Another  view  was  that  of  Lord  Sidmouth.  Admitting 
that  for  every  act  of  the  executive  government  there  must 
be  a responsible  adviser,  he  “ contended  that  there  were 
many  functions  of  the  sovereign  which,  though  strictly  legit- 
imate, not  only  might,  but  must  be  performed  without  any 
such  responsibility  being  attached  to  them,  and  which  must, 
therefore,  be  considered  as  the  personal  acts  of  the  king. 
Of  these  the  constitution  does  not  take  cognizance.”  1 It 
was  the  object  of  this  ingenious  argument  to  absolve  from 
responsibility  both  the  king,  who  could  do  no  wrong,  and  his 
present  advisers,  who,  by  accepting  office,  had  become  re- 
sponsible for  the  measures  by  which  their  predecessors  had 
been  removed.  This  unconstitutional  position  was  well  ex- 
posed by  the  Earl  of  Lauderdale. 

The  example  of  Lord  Danby  was  felicitously  cited  both 
by  the  Earl  of  Lauderdale  and  Lord  Holland  in  support  of 
the  constitutional  principle  that  the  king  can  have  no  sep- 
arate responsibility.  Lord  Danby,  having  been  impeached 
for  offences  committed  as  a minister,  had  produced  a written 
authority  from  the  king  in  his  defence,  but  was  yet  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  execution  of  the  king’s  commands  : nay, 
the  House  of  Commons  voted  his  plea  an  aggravation  of  his 
offences,  as  exposing  the  king  to  public  odium.2 3 

This  doctrine,  in  truth,— that  for  every  act  of  the  Crown 
some  adviser  must  be  responsible,  — could  not  be  denied ; 
but  the  artifice  of  putting  forth  the  king  personally,  and 
representing  him  as  being  on  his  trial  at  the  bar,  — this 
repeated  use  of  the  king’s  name,  was  a tower  of  strength  to 
the  ministerial  party.8 

Lord  Stafford’s  motion  had  been  met  by  the  previous 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  ix.  399. 

2 Ibid.,  405,  414. 

3 Romilly’s  Life,  ii.  197. 


102 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


question  ; but  eventually  the  division  was  taken  upon  the 
adjournment  of  the  House,  which  was  carried  by  a major- 
ity of  eighty-one ; and  thus  the  motion  was  superseded.1 
The  House  did  not  adjourn  until  seven  o’clock  in  the  morn- 
ing. 

But  even  now  the  question  was  not  set  at  rest.  On  the 
Mr.  Lyttie-  15th  April,  Mr.  W.  H.  Lyttleton  renewed  the 
l5thSAp?n,°n’  discussion,  in  proposing  a resolution  expressing 
1807.  regret  at  the  late  changes  in  his  Majesty’s  coun- 

cils. The  debate  added  little  to  the  arguments  on  either 
side,  and  was  brought  to  a close,  at  half-past  six  in  the 
morning,  by  the  House  resolving  to  pass  to  the  orders  of 
the  day.2 

As  a question  of  policy,  it  had  obviously  been  a false  step, 

impolicy  of  on  Part  ministers5 to  give  expression  to 

the  cabinet  their  reservations  in  the  minute  of  the  Cabinet, 
minute. 

They  had  agreed  to  abandon  the  bill  which  had 
caused  the  difference  between  themselves  and  his  Majesty ; 
and,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  as  the  king’s  ministers,  were 
free,  on  any  future  occasion,  to  offer  such  advice  as  they 
might  think  proper.  By  their  ill-advised  minute,  they  in- 
vited the  retaliation  of  this  obnoxious  pledge.  But  no  con- 
stitutional writer  would  now  be  found  to  defend  the  pledge 
itself,  or  to  maintain  that  the  ministers  who  accepted  office 
in  consequence  of  the  refusal  of  that  pledge,  had  not  taken 
upon  themselves  the  same  responsibility  as  if  they  had  ad- 
vised it. 

Meanwhile,  though  this  was  the  first  session  of  a new 
, Parliament,  a speedy  dissolution  was  determined 

The  dissolu-  5 r J 

tkm,  April  upon.  Advantage  was  taken  of  the  prevalent 
anti- Catholic  feeling  which  it  was  feared  might 
subside ; but  the  main  issue  raised  by  this  appeal  to  the 
country  was  the  propriety  of  the  recent  exercise  of  pre- 
rogative. In  the  Lords  Commissioners’  speech,  on  the  27th 

1 Contents,  171 ; Non-contents,  90.  Hansard’s  Debates,  ix.  422. 

2 Ayes,  244;  Noes,  198.  Hansard’s  Debates,  ix.  432-475. 


I 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


103 


April,  the  king  said  he  was  “ anxious  to  recur  to  the  sense 
of  his  people,  while  the  events  which  have  recently  taken 
place  are  yet  fresh  in  their  recollection.”  And  he  distinctly 
invited  their  opinion  upon  them,  by  declaring  that  “ he  at 
once  demonstrates,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  his  own 
conscientious  persuasion  of  the  rectitude  of  those  motives 
upon  which  he  has  acted,  and  affords  to  his  people  the  best 
opportunity  of  testifying  their  determination  to  support  him 
in  every  exercise  of  the  prerogatives  of  his  crown,  which  is 
conformable  to  the  sacred  obligations,  under  which  they  are 
held,  and  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  his  kingdom,  and  to 
the  security  of  the  constitution.”  The  recent  exercise  of 
prerogative  is  thus  associated  with  the  obligations  of  his 
coronation  oath,  so  as  to  unite,  in  favor  of  the  new  minis- 
ters, the  loyalty  of  the  people,  their  personal  attachment  to 
the  sovereign,  and  their  zeal  for  the  Protestant  establish- 
ment. Without  such  appeals  to  the  loyalty  and  religious 
feelings  of  the  people,  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was  alone 
sufficient,  at  that  time,  to  command  a majority  for  minis- 
ters ; and  their  success  was  complete. 

On  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament,  amendments  to 
the  address  were  proposed  in  both  Houses,  con-  Meeting  of 
demning  the  dissolution,  as  founded  upon  “ ground-  ImeSents 
less  and  injurious  pretences,”  but  were  rejected  26thdjune 
by  large  majorities.1  1807- 

The  king’s  will  had  prevailed,  and  was  not  again  to  be 
called  in  question.  His  own  power,  confided  to  The  three 
the  Tory  ministers  who  were  henceforth  admit-  years  prior  to 
ted  to  his  councils,  was  supreme.  Though  there  6 resency‘ 
was  still  a party  of  the  king’s  friends,1 2  his  Majesty  agreed 
too  well  with  his  ministers,  in  principles  and  policy,  to  re- 
quire the  aid  of  irresponsible  advisers.  But  his  rule,  once 
more  absolute,  — after  the  struggles  of  fifty  years,  — was 

1 In  the  Lords  by  a majority  of  93,  and  in  the  Commons  by  a majority 
of  195.  — Hansard's  Debates , ix.  557-658. 

2 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  469;  Romilly’s  Life,  ii.  220. 


104 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


drawing  to  a close.  The  will,  that  had  been  so  strong  and 
unbending,  succumbed  to  disease ; and  a reign  in  which  the 
king  had  been  so  resolute  to  govern,  ended  in  a royal 
“ phantom,”  and  a regency.1 


l See  Chapter  III. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


105 


CHAPTER  II. 

Influence  of  the  Crown  during  the  Regency,  the  Reigns  of  George  IV., 
William  IV.,  and  Her  Majesty,  Queen  Victoria. 

The  Prince  Regent  differed  too  much,  in  character  and 
habits,  from  his  royal  father,  to  be  inclined  to  ex-  Character  of 
ercise  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  with  the  same  the  Prince 

Regent. 

activity.  George  III.,  eager  for  power,  had  also 
delighted  in  business,  to  which  he  had  trained  himself  from 
early  youth.1  With  greater  abilities,  and  superior  education, 
the  prince  was  fond  of  ease  and  pleasure,  and  averse  to  busi- 
ness. His  was  not  the  temperament  to  seek  the  labor  and 
anxieties  of  public  affairs:  nor  had  power  devolved  upon 
him,  until  the  ambitious  spirit  of  youth  had  ceased  to  prompt 
him  to  exertion.  He  loved  the  “ pomp  and  circumstance  ” of 
royalty,  without  its  cares.  But  though  disinclined  to  the 
daily  toils  which  his  father  had  undergone  for  fifty  years,  — 
and  disposed,  by  indolence  and  indifference,  to  leave  more 
discretion  to  his  ministers,  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  state ; 
yet  whenever  his  own  feelings  or  interests  were  concerned, 
his  father  himself  had  scarcely  been  more  imperative. 

The  very  qualities,  however,  which  disinclined  the  prince 
to  laborious  activity,  exposed  him  the  more  readily  influence  of 
to  the  influence  of  his  court.  His  father’s  will  was  hls  court* 
strong,  and  full  of  energy:  his  own,  inconstant  and  capri- 
cious. The  father  had  judged  for  himself,  with  rude  vigor 
and  decision : the  son,  — impulsive,  indolent,  and  without 

1 See  debate,  14th  April,  1812,  on  Col.  M‘Mahon’s  appointment  as  Pri- 
vate Secretary  to  the  Prince  Regent — Hansard's  Deb .,  1st  Ser.,  xxii.  332. 


106 


THE  REGENCY. 


strength  of  principle  or  conviction,  — was  swayed  by  the  ad- 
vice of  those  nearest  to  his  person. 

The  early  events  of  the  regency  displayed  at  once  the  pre- 
ponderating influence  of  the  Crown,  over  all  other  powers 
of  the  state,  and  the  subjection  of  the  regent  to  the  counsels 
of  the  court. 

To  politics,  apart  from  their  relations  to  himself,  the  prince 
His  separa-  was  indifferent ; and  his  indifference  led  to  the 
p(5rticaim  hlS  same  results,  as  the  king’s  strong  predilections, 
fnends.  He  reacpiy  gave  up  the  opinions,  as  well  as  the 
political  friends  of  his  youth.  As  to  his  friends,  indeed,  he 
had  been  separated  from  them  for  many  years,  by  the  French 
Revolution : 1 the  death  of  Mr.  Fox  had  more  recently  loos- 
ened the  tie  which  had  bound  them  together : the  part  taken 
by  them  against  the  Duke  of  York,  had  further  relaxed  it ; 
and  the  proud  bearing  of  the  great  Whig  leaders,  — little 
congenial  to  the  lighter  manners  of  the  court,  — had  nearly 
broken  it  asunder.  But  lately  they  had  exerted  themselves 
strenuously  against  the  restrictions  upon  the  powers  of  the 
regent,  which  the  Government,  following  the  precedent  of 
1788,  had  proposed;  and  their  general  views  of  policy  were 
supposed  to  coincide  with  his  own. 

Other  circumstances  pointed  strongly  to  their  being  now 
__  _ called  to  office.  The  Perceval  administration, 

Mr.  Perce-  ... 

vai’s  adminis-  which  had  owed  its  origin  to  the  king’s  dread  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  claims,  was  weak  and  dis- 
united; and  while  the  leading  statesmen  of  all  other  parties 
were  favorable  to  the  Roman  Catholic  cause,  the  sole  merit 
of  this  ministry  lay  in  their  opposition  to  it.  Mr.  Perceval 
himself  had  been  personally  obnoxious  to  the  prince,  as  the 
friend  and  adviser  of  his  detested  princess,  Caroline  of 
Brunswick : nor  had  the  chancellor,  Lord  Eldon,  been  free 


1 Mr.  Erskine,  writing  to  Mr.  Lee,  8th  Feb.  1793,  said  : “We  are  now 
plunging,  for  nothing,  or  rather  for  mischief,  into  a calamitous  war,  in 
combination  ( not  avowed)  with  the  despots  of  the  North,  to  restore  mon- 
archy in  France.  And  as  it  is  the  cause  of  kings,  our  prince  is  drawn  into 
it,  and  has  taken  his  leave  of  all  of  us.”  — Rockingham  Memoirs , ii.  127. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


107 


from  the  same  offence.  The  regent  had  also  suspected  the 
latter  of  keeping  him  at  a distance  from  his  father,  and  told 
his  lordship  afterwards  “that  there  was  no  person  in  the 
whole  world  that  he  hated  so  much,  as  for  years  he  had  hated 
him.”1 

The  prince  had  further  raised  the  expectations  of  the  Op- 
position, by  confiding  to  Lord  Grenville  and  Lord  The  prince 
Grey  the  drawing  up  of  his  answer  to  the  joint  advice^/*16 
resolutions  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  conditions  of  ^2ie  an<Ien" 
the  regency;  and  he,  as  suddenly,  repressed  these  GreF- 
expectations  by  rejecting  their  draft  for  another,  — the  com- 
position of  himself  and  Mr.  Sheridan.  This  proceeding,  so 
contrary  to  the  views  of  these  noblemen  as  responsible  ad- 
visers, drew  from  them  a remonstrance,  which,  however  con- 
stitutional in  doctrine,  was  too  lofty  in  its  tone,  and  partook 
too  much  of  the  character  of  a lecture,  to  be  altogether  ac- 
ceptable to  the  prince.2 3 

While  the  Regency  Bill  was  passing  through  Parliament, 
the  prince  had  frequent  communications  with  the  Hopes  of  the 
Opposition.  The  plan  of  a new  administration  °PP0Sltl0n- 
was  concerted,  and  several  of  the  principal  places  were  allotted 
to  the  Whig  leaders.  So  assured  were  they  of  their  speedy 
accession  to  power,  that,  jealous  of  the  influence  of  Lord 
Moira  and  Mr.  Sheridan,  they  were  already  insisting  that  the 
prince  should  engage  to  consult  none  but  his  future  minis- 
ters.8 Nor  were  ministers  less  persuaded  of  the  impending 
change.4  The  king  himself,  in  his  lucid  intervals,  was  in- 
formed of  it  by  his  chancellor ; and  was  prepared  to  restore 
his  old  servants  when  he  recovered.5  But  before  the  Regency 
Bill  had  received  the  royal  assent,  the  queen  ad-  Their  disap- 
dressed  a letter  to  the  prince,  suggesting  the  seri-  Pomtment' 

1 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  197,  198. 

2 Moore’s  Life  of  Sheridan,  ii.  383,  et  seq. ; Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Me- 
moirs of  the  Regency,  i.  21,  et  seq. 

3 Rose  Corresp.,  ii.  471-475. 

4 Twiss’s  Life  of  Lord  Eldon,  ii.  197. 

5 Ibid.,  477. 


108 


THE  REGENCY. 


ous  consequences  which  a change  of  ministry  might  have 
upon  the  king’s  recovery.  The  prince  accordingly  acquainted 
Lord  Grenville  that  the  state  of  his  Majesty’s  health  pre- 
vented the  removal  of  ministers  ; but  that  his  confidence  was 
entirely  with  his  lordship,  Lord  Grey,  and  his  other  friends.1 

When  the  restrictions  upon  the  prince’s  powers,  as  regent, 
His  proposal  were  about  to  expire,  and  the  king’s  recovery  had 
should  join  become  more  improbable,  it  was  still  believed  that 
Mr.  Perceval.  ke  woui(^  at  length,  form  a new  administration 
consisting  of  the  Opposition  leaders.  He  contented  himself, 
however,  with  proposing,  through  the  Duke  of  York,  that 
“ some  of  those  persons  with  whom  the  early  habits  of  his 
public  life  were  formed,”  should  agree  to  strengthen  Mr. 
Perceval’s  administration,  — a proposal  which  they  could 
scarcely  have  been  expected  to  accept.2  In  suggesting  this 
arrangement,  he  truly  avowed  that  he  had  “ no  predilections 
to  indulge ; ” having  now  become  as  indifferent  to  the  prin- 
ciples, as  to  the  persons,  of  the  Whig  leaders. 

Restrained  for  a time,  by  the  possibility  of  the  king’s  re- 
His  estrange-  covery,3  from  making  any  changes,  he  had  easily 
"r  become  satisfied  with  existing  arrangements, — his 
leaders.  contentment  being  increased  by  a liberal  civil  fist. 
This  result  was  imputed  to  secret  counsels,  — to  the  per- 
suasion of  the  queen,  the  Hertford  family,  and  the  court. 
Parliament  and  the  press  resounded  with  denunciations  of 
„ . these  covert  influences.4  But  the  events  of  this 

Paramount 

the  Crownf  Peia0(^  ha^  a deeper  import  than  the  intrigues  of  a 
court,  and  the  disappointments  of  a party.  They 

1 Rose  Corresp.,  ii.  478,  479. 

2 Hansard’s  Debates,  xxii.  39,  n.  Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of 
the  Regency,  i.  222.  Lord  Grenville,  writing  to  the  Marquess  of  Bucking- 
ham, Feb.  13th,  1812,  said  : “ The  whole  will  end,  I doubt  not,  in  the  con- 
tinuance of  Perceval,  with  Castlereagh  and  Sidmouth  to  help  him.  And 
this,  I believe,  is  what  Lord  Yarmouth  means,  whose  intentions  are  those 
which  are  alone  of  any  consequence.” — Ibid.,  225.  Mr.  T.  Grenville,  to 
same,  14th  Feb.  — Ibid.,  228  ; Life  of  Sir  J.  Romilly,  iii.  11. 

3 Rose  Corresp.,  ii.  478,  479. 

4 Debate  on  Lord  Boringdon’s  motion,  19th  March,  1812.  Lord  Darn- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


109 


marked  the  paramount  influence  of  the  Crown  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country.  Here  were  the  two  great  parties  in 
the  state  looking  to  royal  favor  alone,  as  the  source  of  their 
power.  It  was  never  doubted  by  the  ministers,  that,  if  they 
retained  the  confidence  of  the  prince  regent,  they  would  be 
able  to  command  the  support  of  Parliament.  It  was  never 
doubted  by  the  Opposition,  that,  if  invited  to  accept  office, 
they  would  be  able  to  maintain  their  position  as  firmly  as 
the  ministers,  whom  they  were  seeking  to  displace.  Both 
parties  were  assured,  that  the  support  of  Parliament  would 
follow  the  confidence  of  the  Crown.  The  Whigs  had  relied 
upon  the  personal  friendship  of  the  prince  regent : but  the 
ministers,  having  supplanted  their  rivals  by  court  favor,  con- 
tinued to  govern  the  country,  with  the  acquiescence  of  an 
obsequious  Parliament.  There  was  no  appeal,  on  either 
side,  to  political  principles  or  policy,  or  to  public  service  ; 
but  all  alike  looked  upwards  to  the  court.  The  Tory 
party  happened  to  prevail ; and  the  government  of  the 
state  was,  therefore,  conducted  on  Tory  principles.  If  the 
Whig  party  had  been  placed  in  power,  without  any  change 
in  public  opinion,  Whig  principles  would  have  been  in  the 
ascendant. 

The  assassination  of  Mr.  Perceval  made  an  unexpected 
opening  for  a new  ministry ; but  the  court  ap-  Negotiations 
pears  to  have  been  resolved  that  no  considerable  of  Mr!  jperce- 
change  should  follow.  Overtures  were  made  to  val’ 1812' 
Lord  Wellesley  and  Mr.  Canning,  to  strengthen  a govern- 
ment to  whose  policy  they  were  opposed ; but,  — as  had 
doubtless  been  expected,  — they  refused  such  conditions.1 

ley,  Earl  Grey,  &c.  — Hansard's  Debates , xxii.  62,  80.  Lord  Donough- 
more,  April  21st,  1812.  — Ibid.,  525.  Mr.  Lyttleton,  May  4th,  1812,  said  : 
“ It  was  notorious  that  the  regent  was  surrounded  with  favorites,  and,  as 
it  were,  hemmed  in  with  minions.” — Ibid.,  1163.  Moore’s  Life  of  Sher- 
idan, ii.  394,  407  ; Life  of  Sir  S.  Romilly,  ii.  366  ; Wilberforce’s  Life,  iii. 
494  ; Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of  the  Regency,  i.  25,  et  seq.,  71, 
163,  177,  241,  246  ; Twiss’s  Life  of  Lord  Eldon,  ii.  193. 

1 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  209-213  ; Court  and  Cabinets  of  the  Re- 
gency, i.  305. 


110 


THE  REGENCY. 


The  old  government  would  have  been  at  once  revived,  had 
not  the  Commons  addressed  the  regent,  on  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Stuart  Wortley,  to  take  measures  “ to  form  a strong  and 
efficient  administration.”1  Lord  Wellesley  was  now  com- 
missioned to  form  a ministry : but  none  of  the  existing  min- 
isters would  listen  to  his  overtures ; and  the  Opposition 
declined  to  accept  such  a share  of  the  cabinet  as  was  offered 
to  them  ; and  thus  his  lordship’s  mission  failed,  as  the  court 
had,  probably,  intended. 

At  length  Lord  Moira,  — the  intimate  friend  of  the  prince, 
Lord  Moira’s  and  the  unconscious  tool  of  the  court,  — was 
mission.  charged  to  consult  with  Lord  Grey  and  Lord 
Grenville,  on  the  formation  of  an  administration.  He  stated 
that  he  had  received  this  commission  without  any  restrictions 
upon  the  consideration  of  such  points  as  they  judged  useful 
for  his  service.  Nothing  could  exceed  the  apparent  fairness 
of  this  proposal ; but,  as  Lords  Grey  and  Grenville  had 
The  royal  received  information  that  no  changes  would  be 
household,  permitted  in  the  royal  household,2  they  inquired 
whether  they  should  be  at  liberty  to  consider  appointments 
to  those  great  offices  in  the  household,  which  were  usually 
included  in  political  arrangements,  on  a change  of  ministry. 
Lord  Moira,  having  obtained  the  prince’s  consent  to  part 
with  the  officers  of  the  household,  if  he  should  advise  it,  had 
assured  his  royal  highness,  before  he  undertook  this  mission, 
“ that  he  should  not  part  with  one  of  them.”  In  execution 
of  his  promise,  he  now  said  that  it  would  be  impossible  for 
him  to  concur  in  the  necessity  of  changing  the  household  on 
the  formation  of  a new  ministry;  and  upon  this  issue  the 
negotiations  were  broken  off.  As  the  views  of  Lord  Moira 
on  the  one  side,  and  of  the  Whigs  on  the  other,  had  been 
well  known  before  Lord  Moira  received  his  commission,8 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xxiii.  231,  286. 

2 Mr.  T.  Grenville  to  Marquess  of  Buckingham,  30th  April,  1812.  — 
Duke  of  Buckingham1  s Memoirs  of  Regency,  i.  335.  From  same  to  same, 
June  1st.  — Ibid.,  336. 

3 Mr.  T.  Grenville  to  the  Marquess  of  Buckingham.  — Ibid.,  i.  357. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN 


111 


this  proposal  would  seem  to  have  been  as  illusory  as  those 
which  had  preceded  it.  But  there  was  yet  another  artifice 
practised  upon  the  Opposition  leaders.  Though  Lord  Moira 
had  determined  not  to  agree  to  any  alteration  in  the  house- 
hold, Lord  Hertford,  Lord  Yarmouth,  and  the  other  officers 
had  resolved  to  resign  their  offices  at  court,  should  the  Op- 
position undertake  to  form  a government.  But  this  impor- 
tant information  was  prevented,  by  court  intrigues,  from 
reaching  the  noble  lords  who  were  conducting  the  negotia- 
tions.1 They  insisted  upon  the  change  in  order  to  give  “ to 
a new  government  that  character  of  efficiency  and  stability, 
and  those  marks  of  the  constitutional  support  of  the  Crown, 
which  were  required  to  enable  it  to  act  usefully  for  the  pub- 
lic service.”  Lord  Moira  rested  his  resistance  to  a claim, — 
which,  according  to  custom,  could  hardly  have  been  opposed 
in  any  bond  fide  consultations,  — on  the  ground  that  changes 
in  the  household  would  give  countenance  to  the  imputations 
which  had  been  thrown  upon  the  court.  It  need  hardly  be 
said  that  his  conduct  produced  the  very  result  which  he  had 
professed  his  anxiety  to  avert. 

The  leaders  of  the  Opposition  were  persuaded  of  the  hol- 
lowness of  all  the  proposals  which  had  been  made  The  regent?s 
to  them ; and,  knowing  the  hostility  of  the  court, 
were  as  unwilling  as  their  opponents,  that  these  Whiss- 
overtures  should  lead  to  any  result.2  Had  they  been  less 
lofty  and  unbending,  they  might  perhaps  have  overcome  the 
obstacles  which  they  dreaded.  The  regent  had  not  the  stub- 
born will  of  his  royal  father,  and  might  have  been  won  over 
o their  side  again,  if  they  had  once  established  themselves 

1 Debates  in  Lords  and  Commons,  8th  and  11th  June,  1812  ; Hansard’s 
Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xxiii.  356,  397,  594,  606,  and  Appendix  of  Papers  ; 
Moore’s  Life  of  Sheridan,  ii.  425  ; Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  214-220. 

2 Debates  in  House  of  Lords,  3d,  5th,'  and  8th  June,  1812  ; Hansard’s 
Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xxiii.  332-356,  and  App.  xli.  ; Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon, 
ii.  216,  217  ; Life  of  Romilly,  iii.  42  ; Horner’s  Memoirs,  ii.  Ill,  311 ; Lord 
Grenville  to  the  Marquess  of  Buckingham,  June  6th  and  9th,  1812  ; Duke 
of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of  Regency,  i.  353,  377  ; Mr.  T.  Grenville.  — 
Ibid.,  354. 


112 


THE  REGENCY. 


at  court.  So  thought  many  of  their  disappointed  followers  : 
but  the  great  lords  judged  otherwise,  and  proudly  shrank  from 
the  ungracious  task  of  combating  the  disfavor  of  the  prince, 
and  the  intrigues  of  his  courtiers.  The  prince,  indeed,  had 
now  become  so  violent  against  the  Opposition,  that  we  are  re- 
minded of  George  III.  in  the  days  of  the  Coalition.  “He 
told  Lord  Wellesley  that  he  had  no  objection  to  one  or  two 
of  them  individually,  but  as  a body  he  would  rather  abdicate 
the  regency  than  ever  come  into  contact  with  them.” 1 And 
again,  after  the  failure  of  Lord  Moira’s  mission,  — “three 
times  that  day,  before  dinner  and  after  dinner,  he  declared 
that  if  Lord  Grey  had  been  forced  upon  him,  he  should  have 
abdicated.” 2 

These  negotiations,  meanwhile,  had  served  their  purpose. 
„ The  old  administration  was  immediately  reconsti- 

tion  of  the  tuted,  under  the  Earl  of  Liverpool ; and  when 
der  Lord  Liv-  complaints  were  made,  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
erpooL  that  a strong  administration  had  not  been  formed 
in  compliance  with  their  address,  the  blame  was  thrown  upon 
the  impracticable  leaders  of  the  Opposition.  The  ministers 
were  now  safe,  and  gained  an  easy  triumph  over  Mr.  Stuart 
Wortley  and  Lord  Milton,  who  endeavored  to  unsettle  the 
government,  by  further  representations  to  the  regent.3 

Henceforth  the  ascendency  of  Tory  politics,  which  George 
. III.  had  established,  and  which  the  regent  had 

Ascendency  7 # ° 

of  Tory  poii-  been  expected  to  overthrow,  w7as  maintained  more 
firmly  than  ever.  By  the  influence  of  the  Crowm 
it  had  been  created ; and  by  the  same  influence  it  was  up- 
held during  the  regency,  and  throughout  the  reign  of  George 
IV.  All  opposition  being  thus  defeated,  and  the  ministers 
and  the  court  party  being  agreed,  the  prince  regent  had  no 
further  need  of  personal  interposition  in  the  government  of 
the  country. 


1 Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of  the  Regency,  i.  323. 

2 Moore’s  Memoirs,  by  Lord  John  Russell,  i.  360. 

8 June  11th,  Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xxiii.  397. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


113 


On  his  accession  to  the  throne,  he  was  dissatisfied  with 
ministers  for  resisting  his  demands  for  a larger  „ 

° . 0 Proceedings 

civil  list ; but  submitted  to  their  judgment,  and  against  ihe 
even,  in  his  speech  to  Parliament,  disclaimed  any  queen’ 
wish  for  an  increased  revenue.1  Soon  afterwards  his  painful 
relations  with  the  queen  led  to  proceedings  of  which  his 
ministers  could  not  approve  : but  in  which,  — with  the  hon- 
orable exception  of  Mr.  Canning,2  — they  were  induced  to 
support  him.  The  king’s  personal  feelings  and  honor  were 
concerned  ; and  the  embarrassing  conduct  of  the  queen  her- 
self, led  them  to  accept  the  responsibility  of  measures  to 
which  the  king  already  stood  committed.  No  sooner  had  he 
succeeded  to  the  throne  than  he  desired  to  obtain  a divorce ; 
but  his  ministers,  at  that  time,  resisted  his  wishes,  and  ex- 
plained their  objections,  in  some  able  minutes  of  the  cabi- 
net.3 He  obtained  from  them,  however,  an  assurance  that, 
if  her  Majesty  should  return  to  England,  they  would  no 
longer  oppose  him  in  his  cherished  object.4  They  were 
little  prepared  for  so  embarrassing  an  event ; but  it  was 
soon  to  be  brought  about  by  the  offensive  measures  which 
the  king  had  taken,  and  his  ministers  had  sanctioned,  against 
her. 

The  queen  had  already  been  irritated  by  two  great  insults. 
Our  ambassadors,  acting  upon  their  instructions  from  home, 
had  prevented  her  recognition  as  Queen  of  England  at  for- 
eign courts ; and  her  name  had  been  omitted,  by  command 
of  the  king,  from  the  liturgy  of  the  Church.  Even  the 
legality  of  this  latter  act  was  much  doubted.5  It  was  at 

1 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  363  ; Com.  Journ.,  lxxv.  110. 

2 See  Stapleton’s  Life  of  Canning,  290-295,  315-323. 

3 10th  and  14th  February,  1820  ; Stapleton’s  Life  of  Canning,  266,  279, 
299. 

4 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  368. 

5 Debates  in  Lords  and  Commons,  1820,  on  the  papers  relating  to  the 
conduct  of  the  queen.  Dr.  Phillimore,  writing  to  the  Marquess  of  Buck- 
ingham, 16th  Jan.  1821,  said  : u The  general  opinion  of  lawyers  is,  I 
think,  unfavorable  to  the  claim.” — Duke  of  Buckingham's  Memoirs  of 
George  IV,  i.  109. 

VOL.  i. 


8 


114 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  FOURTH. 


least  so  disputable  as  to  be  an  unwise  exercise  of  the  pre- 
rogative.1 Such  insults  as  these,  naturally  provoked  the 
queen  to  insist  upon  her  proper  recognition.  At  the  same 
time  they  aroused  popular  sympathy  in  her  cause,  which 
encouraged  her  to  proceed  to  extremities.  The  ministers 
vainly  attempted  a compromise : but  it  was  too  late.  The 
queen  was  already  on  her  way  to  England,  loudly  asserting 
her  rights.  They  endeavored  to  prevent  her  approach,  by 
submitting  a proposal  that  she  should  receive  an  annuity  of 
50,000/.  a year,  on  renouncing  her  title,  and  continuing  to 
reside  abroad ; and  threatening  proceedings  against  her  in 
Parliament,  if  she  refused  these  conditions.  She  refused 
them,  and  hastened  to  England,  — when  preliminary  pro- 
ceedings were  at  once  commenced.  Even  now  there  was 
still  hope  of  a compromise,  sought  by  the  queen  herself. 
The  king  was  willing  to  drop  all  further  proceedings  against 
her,  and  to  recognize  her  title,  on  condition  of  her  residing 
abroad ; but  the  queen  demanded  the  restoration  of  her 
name  in  the  liturgy,  and  her  recognition  in  at  least  one  for- 
eign court,  — which  the  king  refused  to  concede.2 3 

And  now  the  threat  was  carried  out  to  the  fullest  extent, 
Conduct  of  by  the  introduction  of  a bill  into  the  House  of 
the  ministers.  Lorjs?  t0  deprive  her  Majesty  of  her  title,  pre- 
rogatives, and  rights,  and  to  dissolve  her  marriage  with  the 
king.  The  ministers  were  fully  sensible  of  the  difficulties, 
and  even  of  the  danger,  of  yielding  to  the  king’s  desire  to 
prosecute  this  formidable  measure.  Lord  Eldon,  writing  in 
June,  1820,  said,  “ I think  no  administration,  who  have  any 
regard  for  him,  will  go  the  length  he  wishes,  as  an  adminis- 
tration, — and  if  they  will,  they  cannot  take  Parliament 
along  with  them  : that  body  is  afraid  of  disclosures,  — not 
on  one  side  only,  — which  may  affect  the  monarchy  itself.” 8 

1 Mr.  C.  Wynn  to  the  Marquess  of  Buckingham.  — Ibid.,  116. 

2 Debates,  19th  June,  1820,  when  the  failure  of  these  negotiations  was 
announced. 

3 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i'i.  372. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


115 


But  on  the  failure  of  all  their  attempts  to  effect  an  accommo- 
dation of  the  royal  differences,  they  yielded,  — against  their 
better  judgment,  — to  the  revengeful  spirit  of  the  king. 

The  disgraceful  incidents  of  the  “ queen’s  trial  ” are  too 
well  known  to  need  repetition,  even  if  they  ought  otherwise 
to  find  a place  in  this  history.  But  what  were  the  constitu- 
tional aspects  of  the  case  ? The  king  had  resolved  to  exe- 
cute an  act  of  vengeance  rather  than  of  justice  against  the 
queen,  — whose  wrongs  had  aroused  for  her  protection,  the 
strongest  popular  feelings,  — sympathy  with  a woman,  and 
resentment  of  oppression.  All  the  power  of  the  Crown  was 
arrayed  on  one  side,  and  the  excited  passions  of  the  people 
on  the  other.  The  impending  conflict  was  viewed  with 
alarm  by  statesmen  of  all  parties.  Many  sagacious  observ- 
ers dreaded  a civil  war.  The  ministers  foresaw  the  dangers 
to  which  the  country  was  exposed : they  disapproved  of  pro- 
ceedings which,  without  their  acquiescence,  could  not  have 
been  attempted ; — yet  they  lent  themselves  to  gratify  the 
anger  and  hatred  of  the  king.  They  were  saved  from  the 
consummation  of  their  worst  fears  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
Bill  of  Pains  and  Penalties,  at  its  last  stage  in  the  House 
of  Lords:  but  in  proceeding  so  far,  in  opposition  to  their 
own  judgment,  they  had  sinned  against  their  constitutional 
obligations,  as  responsible  ministers.  By  consenting  to  act 
as  instruments  of  the  king’s  pleasure,  they  brought  him  into 
dangerous  collision  with  his  people.  Had  they  refused  to 
permit,  what  they  could  not  justify  to  Parliament  or.  the 
country,  they  would  have  spared  the  king  his  humiliation, 
and  the  state  its  perils. 

Not  to  have  supported  the  king  in  a cause  affecting  his 
deepest  feelings  and  his  honor,  might  have  exposed  them  to 
the  reproach  of  deserting  their  royal  master  in  his  utmost 
need,  and  even  of  siding  with  his  hated  consort:1  but  a 

1 Lord  Brougham  has  attributed  their  conduct  solely  to  an  unworthy  de- 
sire to  retain  their  places  ( Works , iv.  33  ; ) but  perhaps  the  suggestion  in 
the  text  is  nearer  the  truth. 


116 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  FOURTH. 


higher  sense  of  their  responsibilities,  and  greater  firmness 
in  asserting  them,  would  have  made  them  mediators  between 
the  king,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  queen,  the  Parliament, 
and  the  people,  on  the  other.1 

The  Opposition  had  espoused  the  queen’s  cause,  — some 
The  king’s  an- to  protect  her  from  oppression,  — some  to  lead  a 
agdnstthe  P0Puktr  cause  against  the  ministers,  — and  others, 
Opposition.  like  Cobbett,  to  gratify  their  bitter  hatred  of 
the  government.  The  king’s  resentment  against  those  who 
had  opposed  him  in  Parliament,  equalled  that  of  his  father 
against  Mr.  Fox.  Mr.  Fremantle,  writing  Dec.  29,  1820, 
to  the  Marquess  of  Buckingham,  said : “ His  invective 
against  Lord  Grey  was  stronger  and  more  violent  than  I 
can  possibly  repeat ; ” and  again  : “ What  I am  most  anxious 
to  observe  to  you,  was  his  increased  hostility  and  indigna- 
tion against  the  Opposition,  and  more  personally  against 
Lord  Grey.”  2 Yet  the  same  acute  observer,  who  knew  the 
king  well,  writing  again  Jan.  24,  1821,  said:  “ Lord  Gren- 
ville fancies  a Whig  government  could  not  last  six  months, 
reasoning  from  the  conduct  of  George  III ; but  in  this  I am 
persuaded  he  would  find  himself  deceived,  for  the  same 
decision  and  steadiness  of  mind  does  not  belong  to  his  suc- 
cessor. And  should  the  change  once  take  place,  new  at- 
tachments and  habits  would  prevail,  and  obliterate  all  former 
anger.”  3 

Meanwhile,  the  popularity  of  the  king,  which  had  suffered 

1 Mr.  Canning  wrote  to  Mr.  Huskisson,  Oct.  2,  1820,  that  the  ministers 

ought  to  have  held  this  language  to  the  king  : “ ‘ Sir,  — divorce  is  impossi- 
ble! ’ ‘ What!  if  she  comes,  if  she  braves,  if  she  insults?  ’ ‘ Yes,  sir,  in 

any  case,  divorce  is  impossible.  Other  things  may  be  tried,  other  expe- 
dients may  be  resorted  to  ; but  divorce,  we  tell  you  again,  is  impossible. 

It  can  never  be  ; ’ and  see  the  fruits”  (of  their  conduct),  — “ a 

government  brought  into  contempt  and  detestation  ; a kingdom  thrown 
into  such  ferment  and  convulsion,  as  no  other  kingdom  or  government 
ever  recovered  from  without  a revolution  ; but  I hope  we  shall.”  — Staple- 
ton's Life  of  Canning , 299. 

2 Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of  George  IV.,  i.  99. 

8 Ibid.,  112. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


117 


for  a time  from  these  proceedings,  was  speedily  recovered. 
The  monarchy  had  sustained  no  permanent  in-  popuiarity  of 
jury : its  influence  was  not  in  the  least  impaired.  Geo- IV- 
The  personal  character  of  the  king  was  not  such  as  to  com- 
mand the  respect  or  attachment  of  the  people  ; yet  at  no 
previous  period  had  their  loyalty  been  more  devoted  — 
never,  perhaps,  had  the  adulation  of  royalty  been  so  ex- 
travagant and  servile.  There  were  discontent  and  turbu- 
lence among  some  classes  of  the  people ; but  the  Crown  and 
its  ministers  ruled  supreme  over  Parliament,  the  press,  the 
society,  and  the  public  opinion  of  the  country. 

Though  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was  acknowledged  as 
fully  as  at  any  time  in  the  late  reign,  it  had  not  MotionofMr. 
been  brought  under  parliamentary  discussion  for  Brougham  on 

01  J the  influence 

many  years;  when,  in  1822,  Mr.  Brougham  in-  the  Crown, 
/ \ ’ ’ . TT  June  24, 1822. 

troduced  a motion  on  the  subject.  He  proposed 

to  declare  that  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was  “ unnecessary 
for  maintaining  its  constitutional  prerogatives,  destructive  of 
the  independence  of  Parliament,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
well-governing  of  the  realm.”  By  comparing  the  present 
expenditure  with  that  of  1780,  — the  number  of  places  and 
commissions,  the  cost  of  collecting  the  revenue,  and  the  host 
of  persons  looking  up  to  government  for  patronage,  — he 
pronounced  the  influence  of  the  Crown  to  have  been  greatly 
increased  since  Mr.  Dunning’s  celebrated  resolution.  He 
admitted,  however,  that  the  number  of  placemen  in  the 
House  had  been  diminished.  In  the  time  of  Lord  Carteret 
there  had  been  two  hundred,  and  at  an  antecedent  period 
even  three  hundred : in  1780  there  had  been  between  eighty 
and  ninety;  and  in  1822,  eighty-seven,  — many  of  whom, 
however,  could  not  be  said  to  be  dependent  on  the  Crown. 
He  drew  an  entertaining  historical  sketch  of  the  manner  in 
which  every  party,  in  turn,  so  long  as  it  held  office,  had  en- 
joyed the  confidence  of  the  House  of  Commons,  but  had  lost 
that  confidence  immediately  it  was  in  Opposition,  — a coin- 
cidence, he  attributed  to  the  ascendency  of  the  Crown,  which 


118 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  FOURTH. 


alone  enabled  any  ministry  to  command  a majority.  The 
Marquess  of  Londonderry,  in  a judicious  speech,  pointed  out 
that  the  authority  of  the  Crown  had  been  controlled  by  the 
increasing  freedom  of  the  press,  and  by  other  causes ; and 
after  a debate  of  some  interest,  Mr.  Brougham’s  motion  was 
negatived  by  a large  majority.1 

Early  in  his  reign,  the  king  was  supposed  to  be  in  favor 
The  king’s  of  a measure  for  the  relief  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
CathoHc  the  lics  5 and  its  friends  were  even  speculating  upon 
question.  his  encouragement  to  carry  it  through  Parlia- 
ment.2 But  in  1824  he  had  become  “ violently  anti-Catho- 
lic ; ” and  so  paramount  was  his  influence  supposed  to  be 
over  the  deliberations  of  Parliament,  that  the  friends  of  the 
cause  believed  it  to  be  hopeless.3  Until  the  death  of  Lord 
Liverpool,  the  Catholic  claims  having  small  hope  of  success, 
it  was  sufficient  to  let  the  king’s  opinions  be  known  through 
common  report.  But  when  Mr.  Canning,  the  brilliant  cham- 
pion of  the  Roman  Catholics,  had  become  first  minister,  his 
Majesty  thought  it  necessary  to  declare  his  sentiments,  in  a 
more  authentic  shape.  And  accordingly  he  sent  for  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  Bishop  of  London,  and 
“ directed  them  to  make  known  to  their  clergy  that  his  senti- 
ments on  the  Coronation  Oath,  and  on  the  Catholic  question 
were  those  his  revered  father,  George  III.,  and  lamented 
brother,  the  Duke  of  York,  had  maintained  during  their  lives, 
and  which  he  himself  had  professed  when  Prince  of  Wales, 
and  which  nothing  could  shake  ; finally,  assuring  them  that 
the  recent  ministerial  arrangements  were  the  result  of  cir- 
cumstances, to  his  Majesty  equally  unforeseen  and  unpleas- 
ant.” 4 And  when  political  necessity  had  wrung  from  Sir 

1 Ayes  216,  Noes  101.  — Hansard's  Debates , 2d  Ser.,  vii.  1266. 

2 “I  hear  he  is  for  it,”  said  the  Duke  of  Wellington  to  Mr.  Fremantle. 
“ By  the  by,”  he  added,  “ I hear  Lady  Conyngham  supports  it,  which  is 
a great  thing.” — Duke  of  Buckingham's  Memoirs  of  George  IV.,  i.  148  ; 
ib.  218. 

3 Ibid.,  ii.  103,  169,  211. 

4 Speech  of  the  Bishop  of  London  at  a dinner  of  the  clergy  of  his  dio- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


119 


Bobert  Peel  and  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  a conviction  that 
a measure  of  relief  could  no  longer  be  withheld,  it  was  with 
extreme  difficulty  that  they  obtained  his  assent  to  its  intro- 
duction.1 After  he  had  given  his  consent,  he  retracted,  and 
again  yielded  it : — attempted  to  deny,  or  explain  it  away  to 
his  anti- Catholic  advisers : — complained  of  his  ministers,  and 
claimed  the  pity  of  his  friends.  “ If  I do  give  my  assent,” 
said  he,  “ I’ll  go  to  the  baths  abroad,  and  from  thence  to  Han- 
over : I’ll  return  no  more  to  England  ....  I’ll  return  no 
more  : let  them  get  a Catholic  king  in  Clarence.”  Such  had 
once  been  the  threat  of  the  stout  old  king,  who,  whatever  his 
faults,  at  least  had  firmness  and  strength  of  will.  But  the 
king  who  now  uttered  these  feeble  lamentations,  found  solace 
in  his  trouble,  by  throwing  his  arms  round  the  neck  of  the 
aged  Eldon.2  And  again,  in  imitation  of  his  father,  — hav- 
ing assented  to  the  passing  of  the  Act,  which  he  had  delib- 
erately authorized  his  ministers  to  carry,  — he  gratified  his 
animosity  against  those  who  had  supported  it,  — particularly 
the  peers  and  bishops,  — by  marked  incivility  at  his  levee  ; 
while  he  loaded  with  attentions,  those  who  had  distinguished 
themselves  by  opposition  to  the  government.3 

This  concession  to  the  Eoman  Catholics,  — which  the 
ablest  statesmen  of  all  parties  concurred  in  supporting, — 
had  already  been  delayed  for  thirty  years,  by  the  influence 
of  the  Crown.  Happily  this  influence  had  now  fallen  into 
weaker  hands  ; or  it  might  still  have  prevailed  over  wiser 
counsels,  and  the  grave  interests  of  the  state. 

Hitherto  we  have  seen  the  influence  of  the  Crown  invari- 
ably exercised  against  a liberal  policy  ; and  often  Reign  of  Wa- 
against  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people.  But  ham  IV' 
the  earlier  years  of  the  reign  of  William  IY.  presented  the 

cese,  8th  May,  1827  ; Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Memoirs  of  George  IY.,  ii. 
324  ; Gentleman’s  Magazine,  xcvii.  457. 

1 Peel’s  Mem.,  i.  274,  &c.  ; and  see  Chapter  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religious 
Liberty. 

2 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  iii.  82-87.  Peel’s  Mem.,  i.  343-350. 

3 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  iii.  88. 


120 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


novel  spectacle  of  the  prerogatives  and  personal  influence  of 
the  king  being  exerted,  in  a great  popular  cause,  on  behalf 
His  support  PeoP^e*  At  various  times,  small  expedi- 

ofpariiamen-  ents  had  been  tried  with  a view  to  restrain  the 

tary  reform. 

influence  of  the  Crown ; but  the  Reform  Bill,  by 
increasing  the  real  power  of  the  people  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  was  the  first  great  measure  calculated  to  effect 
that  object ; and  this  measure,  it  was  everywhere  proclaimed 
that  the  king  himself  approved.  The  ministers  themselves 
announced  his  Majesty’s  entire  confidence  in  their  policy, 
and  his  determination  to  support  them ; 1 and  the  advocates 
of  the  cause,  in  every  part  of  the  country,  declared  that  the 
king  was  on  their  side. 

Yet,  in  truth,  the  attitude  of  the  king  in  regard  to  this 
measure,  at  first  resembled  that  which  his  royal  predecessors 
had  maintained  against  a progressive  policy.  When  minis- 
ters first  proposed  to  introduce  it,  he  regarded  it  with  dislike 
and  apprehension  : he  dreaded  the  increasing  influence  and 
activity  of  the  Commons,  and,  — alarmed  by  the  spirit  in 
which  they  had  investigated  the  expenditure  of  his  civil  list, 
— he  feared  lest,  strengthened  by  a more  popular  represen- 
tation, they  should  encroach  upon  his  own  prerogatives  and 
independence.2  The  royal  family  and  the  court  were  also 
averse  to  the  measure,  and  to  the  ministers.  But  when  his 
Majesty  had  given  his  consent  to  the  scheme  submitted  by 
the  cabinet,  he  was  gratified  by  its  popularity,  — in  which  he 
largely  shared,  — and  which  its  supporters  adroitly  contrived 
to  associate  with  his  Majesty’s  personal  character,  and  sup- 
posed political  sympathies. 

He  was  still  distrustful  of  his  ministers  and  their  policy  ; 
yet  while  the  tide  of  popular  favor  was  running  high,  and 
no  political  danger  was  immediately  impending,  he  gave 
them  his  support  and  countenance.  On  their  side,  they  were 

1 At  the  Lord  Mayor’s  Dinner,  Easter  Monday,  1831.  Twiss’s  Life  of 
Eldon,  iii.  126. 

2 Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  27,  28. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


121 


not  slow  to  take  advantage  of  the  influence  of  his  name : 
they  knew  that  it  would  be  a tower  of  strength  to  their 
Cause  ; and,  sensible  of  the  insecurity  of  his  favor,  they  took 
care  that  it  should  be  widely  proclaimed,  as  long  as  it  lasted. 

Politicians  like  Lord  Eldon,  who,  for  forty  years,  had  re- 
lied upon  the  influence  of  the  Crown  to  resist  every  popular 
measure, — even  when  proposed  by  its  own  responsible  min- 
isters, — were  now  scandalized  by  this  “ unconstitutional  ” 
cry.1  Yet  what  did  this  cry,  in  truth,  import  ? The  state 
of  parties  in  Parliament,  and  of  popular  feeling  in  the  coun- 
try, had  brought  into  the  king’s  service,  a ministry  pledged 
to  the  cause  of  Parliamentary  reform.  To  this  ministry  he 
had  given  his  confidence.  George  III.,  by  some  bold  stroke 
or  cunning  manoeuvre,  would  soon  have  set  himself  free  from 
such  a ministry.  George  IV.,  after  giving  a doubtful  assent 
to  their  policy,  would  have  reserved  his  confidence  and  his 
sympathies  for  their  opponents;  but  William  IV.  at  this  time, 
took  a part  at  once  manly  and  constitutional.  His  responsi- 
ble ministers  had  advised  the  passing  of  a great  measure,  and 
he  had  accepted  their  advice.  They  were  now  engaged  in  a 
fierce  parliamentary  struggle ; and  the  king  gave  them,  — 
what  they  were  entitled  to  expect,  — his  open  confidence. 
So  long  as  they  enjoyed  this  confidence,  he  exercised  his 
prerogatives  and  influence  according  to  their  counsels.  His 
powers  were  used  in  the  spirit  of  the  constitution,  — not  in- 
dependently, or  secretly,  — but  on  the  avowed  advice  and 
responsibility  of  his  ministers. 

The  king  was  called  upon,  at  a critical  period,  to  exer- 
cise his  prerogative  of  dissolving  Parliament.  In  Dissolution  of 
1831,  a new  Parliament  was  yet  in  its  first  session ; 1831  • 
but  having  been  assembled  under  the  auspices  of  the  late 
administration,  before  the  popular  feelings  in  favor  of  Par- 
liamentary reform  had  been  aroused,  it  had  become  evident 
that  a reform  ministry,  and  this  Parliament,  could  not  exist 
together.  The  ministers,  having"  been  twice  defeated  in 

1 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  iii.  126. 


122 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


three  days,1  had  no  alternative  but  to  resign  their  offices,  or 
to  appeal  from  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  people ; and 
they  urged  the  necessity  of  an  immediate  dissolution.  The 
time  was  full  of  peril,  and  the  king  hesitated  to  adopt  the 
bold  advice  of  his  ministers ; but  when  at  length  he  yielded 
his  assent,  the  prerogative  was  exercised  at  once,  and  by  the 
king  in  person.2  If  there  was  something  unseemly  in  the 
haste  with  which  this  was  done,  and  unusual  in  the  manner 
of  doing  it,  — the  occasion  was  one  demanding  the  promptest 
action.  Lord  Wharnclifie  had  given  notice  of  a motion  for 
an  address  to  the  king,  remonstrating  against  a dissolution, 
and  his  motion  was  actually  under  discussion  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  when  the  king  arrived  to  prorogue  Parliament.3 
Both  houses  would  probably  have  joined  in  such  an  address, 
had  time  been  allowed  them,  and  would  have  interposed  em- 
barrassing obstacles  to  the  exercise  of  the  king’s  prerogative. 
By  this  sudden  appeal  to  the  people,  ministers  at  once  de- 
prived their  opponents  of  the  vantage-ground  of  parliamen- 
tary opposition. 

The  dissolution  resulted  in  an  overpowering  majority  of 
the  new  House  of  Commons,  in  favor  of  the 

Second  Re- 

form  Bill,  government  Reform  Bill.  And  now  the  House 
of  Lords,  exercising  its  constitutional  right,  re- 
jected it.  So  important  a measure  was  trying  all  the  powers 
of  the  state,  to  their  utmost  tension.  The  popular  excite- 
ment was  so  great  that  it  was  impossible  for  ministers  to 
yield.  The  king  still  upheld  them,  and  the  Commons  sup- 
ported them  by  a vote  of  confidence.  All  the  political  forces 
of  the  country  were  thus  combined  against  the  House  of 
Lords. 

After  a short  prorogation,  a third  Reform  Bill  was  passed 

1 First,  on  General  Gascoigne’s  amendment,  19th  April,  and  afterwards 
on  a question  of  adjournment,  21st  April. 

2 For  an  account  of  the  interview  between  the  king  and  Lords  Grey  and 
Brougham,  see  Roebuck’s  Hist.t>f  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  149,  et  seq. 

3 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  iii.  1806;  Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig 
Ministry,  ii.  152 ; Ann.  Register,  1831,  p.  110. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


123 


by  the  Commons.  The  position  of  the  Lords  was  now  too  per- 
ilous not  to  cause  some  wavering;  and  the  second  Third  Reform 
reading  of  the  bill  was  accordingly  agreed  to,  by  Blll>  1831-32- 
the  small  majority  of  nine.  This  concession,  however,  was 
followed  by  an  adverse  vote  in  committee.  A graver  ques- 
tion of  prerogative  had  now  to  be  considered.  An  appeal 
from  the  House  of  Commons  to  the  people  had  proposed 
been  decisive  ; but  what  appeal  was  there  from  peers!°n8th 
the  House  of  Lords  ? None,  save  to  the  Crown,  May’ 1832, 
to  which  that  body  owed  its  existence.  A creation  of  peers 
was  the  ultima  ratio , which,  after  serious  doubts  and  misgiv- 
ings, ministers  submitted  to  the  king.  His  Majesty’s  resolu- 
tion had  already  been  shaken  by  the  threatening  aspect  of 
affairs,  and  by  the  apprehensions  of  his  family  and  court  ; 
and  he,  not  unnaturally,  shrank  from  so  startling  an  exercise 
of  his  prerogative.1  The  ministers  resigned,  and  the  Com- 
mons addressed  the  king,  praying  him  to  call  such  persons 
only  to  his  councils,  as  would  promote  the  passing  of  the 
Reform  Bill.2  The  Duke  of  Wellington  having  failed  to 
form  a government,  ready  to  devise  a measure  of  reform  at 
once  satisfactory  to  the  people  and  to  the  House  of  Lords, 
the  ministers  were  recalled. 

Another  pressure  was  now  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
House  of  Lords,  — irregular  and  unconstitutional 

. _ _ ° . Influence  of 

indeed,  but  necessary  to  avert  revolution  on  the  the  king  over 
one  hand,  and  to  save  the  peers  from  harsh  co-  e peers‘ 
ercion,  on  the  other.  The  king  having  at  length  agreed  to 
create  'a  sufficient  number  of  peers  to  carry  the  bill,3  — yet 
anxious  to  avoid  so  extreme  a measure,  — averted  the 
dangers  of  a great  political  crisis,  by  a timely  interference. 
Some  of  the  most  violent  peers  were  first  dissuaded  from 
proceeding  to  extremities ; and  on  the  17th  May,  the  follow- 
ing circular  letter  was  addressed,  without  the  knowledge  of 
ministers,  to  the  opposition  peers  : — 

1 Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  222-227,  281. 

2 See  also  Chapters  Y.  and  YI. 

3 Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  331. 


124 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


“My  dear  Lord,  — I am  honored  with  his  Majesty’s  com- 
mands to  acquaint  your  lordship,  that  all  difficulties  to  the  ar- 
rangements in  progress  will  be  obviated  by  a declaration  in  the 
House  to-night  from  a sufficient  number  of  peers,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  present  state  of  affairs,  they  have  come  to  the 
resolution  of  dropping  their  further  opposition  to  the  Reform 
Bill,  so  that  it  may  pass  without  delay,  and  as  nearly  as  possible 
in  its  present  shape. 

“ I have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

“ Herbert  Taylor.”  1 

The  peers  took  this  suggestion,  and  yielded.  Had  they 
continued  their  resistance,  a creation  of  peers  could  not  have 
been  avoided.  This  interference  of  the  king  with  the  inde- 
pendent deliberations  of  the  House  of  Lords  was,  in  truth,  a 
more  unconstitutional  act  than  a creation  of  peers,  — the  one 
being  an  irregular  interference  of  the  Crown  with  the  free- 
dom of  Parliament,  — the  other  merely  the  unusual  exercise 
of  an  undoubted  prerogative.  But  it  was  resorted  to,  not  to 
extend  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  or  to  overawe  the  Par- 
liament, — but  to  restore  harmonious  action  to  those  powers 
of  the  state,  which  had  been  brought  into  dangerous  opposi- 
tion and  conflict.  In  singular  contrast  to  the  history  of  past 
times,  the  greatest  extension  of  the  liberties  of  the  people 
was  now  obtained,  in  the  last  resort,  by  the  influence  of  the 
Crown. 

Two  years  after  these  great  events,  the  prerogatives  of 
The  Whigs  the  Crown  were  again  called  into  activity,  in  a 
dencehofCthe"  manner  which  seemed  to  revive  the  political  his- 
king*  tory  of  1784.  Lord  Grey’s  government  had  lost 
the  confidence  of  the  king.  His  Majesty  had  already  be- 
come apprehensive  of  danger  to  the  Church,  when  his  alarm 
was  increased  by  the  retirement  of  Lord  Stanley,  Sir  J. 
Graham,  and  two  other  members  of  the  cabinet,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  appropriation  of  the  surplus  revenues  of  the 
Church  of  Ireland.  And  without  consulting  his  ministers,  he 
gave  public  expression  to  this  alarm,  in  replying  to  an  address 
1 Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  334. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


125 


of  the  prelates  and  clergy  of  Ireland.1  The  ministry  of  Lord 
Grey,  enfeebled  by  the  retirement  of  their  colleagues,  by 
disunion,  and  other  embarrassments,  soon  afterwards  re- 
signed. Though  they  had  already  lost  their  popularity, 
they  had  continued  to  command  a large  majority  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  Lord  Melbourne’s  administration 
which  succeeded,  was  composed  of  the  same  materials,  and 
represented  the  great  liberal  party,  and  its  parliamentary 
majority.  Lord  Melbourne  had  concluded  the  business  of 
the  session  of  1834,  with  the  full  support  of  this  majority. 
But  the  king,  who  had  withdrawn  his  confidence  from  Lord 
Grey,  reposed  it  still  less  in  Lord  Melbourne,  — having,  in 
the  mean  time,  become  entirely  converted  to  the  political 
opinions  of  the  Opposition. 

In  October,  the  death  of  Lord  Spencer  having  removed 
Lord  Althorp  from  the  leadership  of  the  House  of  Thdr  sudden 
Commons,  and  from  his  office  of  Chancellor  of  the  dismissal  in 
Exchequer,  the  king  seized  upon  this  opportunity 
for  suddenly  dismissing  his  ministers ; and  consulted  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  upon  the  formation  of  a government,  from  the 
opposite  party.  Lord  A1  thorp’s  elevation  to  the  House  of 
Lords  rendered  necessary  a partial  reconstruction  of  the  min- 
istry ; but  assuredly  that  circumstance  alone  would  not  have 
suggested  the  propriety  of  taking  counsel  with  those  who  con- 
stituted but  a small  minority  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord 
Melbourne  proposed  to  supply  the  place  of  Lord  Althorp  by 
Lord  John  Russell,  — a far  abler  man;  but  the  king  was 
determined  that  the  ministry  should  be  dissolved.  All  the 
usual  grounds  for  dismissing  a ministry  were  wanting.  There 
was  no  immediate  difference  of  opinion  between  them  and 
the  king,  upon  any  measure,  or  question  of  public  policy,  — 
there  was  no  disunion  among  themselves,  nor  were  there 
any  indications  that  they  had  lost  the  confidence  of  Parlia- 
ment. But  the  accidental  removal  of  a single  minister,  — 
not  necessarily  even  from  the  government,  but  only  from 
1 Annual  Register,  1834,  p.  43. 


126 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


one  House  of  Parliament  to  the  other,  — was  made  the  oc- 
casion for  dismissing  the  entire  administration.  It  is  true 
that  the  king  viewed  with  apprehension  the  policy  of  his 
ministers  in  regard  to  the  Irish  Church ; but  his  assent  was 
not  then  required  to  any  specific  measure  of  which  he  dis- 
approved ; — nor  was  this  the  ground  assigned  for  their  dis- 
missal. The  right  of  the  king  to  dismiss  his  ministers  was 
unquestionable ; but  constitutional  usage  has  prescribed 
certain  conditions  under  which  this  right  should  be  exer- 
cised. It  should  be  exercised  solely  in  the  interests  of  the 
state,  and  on  grounds  which  can  be  justified  to  Parliament, 
— to  whom,  as  well  as  to  the  king,  the  ministers  are  respon- 
sible. Even  in  1784,  when  George  III.  had  determined  to 
crush  the  Coalition  Ministry,  he  did  not  venture  to  dismiss 
them,  until  they  had  been  defeated  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
upon  Mr.  Fox’s  India  Bill.  And  again,  in  1807,  the  minis- 
ters were  at  issue  with  the  king  upon  a grave  constitutional 
question,  before  he  proceeded  to  form  another  ministry.  But 
here  it  was  not  directly  alleged  that  the  ministers  had  lost 
the  confidence  of  the  king  ; and  so  little  could  it  be  affirmed 
that  they  had  lost  the  confidence  of  Parliament,  that  an  im- 
mediate dissolution  was  counselled  by  the  new  administra- 
tion. The  act  of  the  king  bore  too  much  the  impress  of  his 
personal  will,  and  too  little  of  those  reasons  of  state  policy 
by  which  it  should  have  been  prompted  ; but  its  impolicy 
was  so  signal  as  to  throw  into  the  shade  its  unconstitutional 
character. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  advised  his  Majesty  that  the 
Temporary  difficult  task  of  forming  a new  administration, 
arrangements  should  be  intrusted  to  Sir  Robert  Peel.  But 

under  the 

Duke  of  Wei-  such  had  been  the  suddenness  of  the  king’s  reso- 
lution, that  Sir  Robert,  wholly  unprepared  for 
any  political  changes,  was  then  at  Rome.  The  Duke,  how- 
ever, promptly  met  this  difficulty  by  accepting  the  office  of 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  himself,  until  Sir  Robert  Peel’s 
arrival,  together  with  the  seals  of  one  of  his  Majesty’s 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


127 


Principal  Secretaries  of  State,  which,  — as  there  was  no 
other  secretary,  — constituted  his  grace  Secretary  for  the 
Home,  the  Foreign  and  the  Colonial  Departments.  His 
sole  colleague  was  Lord  Lyndhurst,  who  was  intrusted  with 
the  Great  Seal ; but  still  retained  the  office  of  Lord  Chief 
Baron  of  the  Court  of  Exchequer. 

This  assumption  of  the  government  by  a single  man,  while 
Parliament  was  not  sitting,  — avowedly  for  the  purpose  of 
forming  an  administration  from  a party  whose  following  com- 
prised less  than  a fourth  of  the  House  of  Commons,1  — pre- 
sented an  unpromising  view  of  constitutional  government, 
after  the  Reform  Act. 

In  defence  of  this  concentration  of  offices,  the  precedent  of 
the  Duke  of  Shrewsbury  was  cited,  who,  in  the  last  days  of 
Queen  Anne,  had  held  the  several  offices  of  Lord  High  Treas- 
urer, Lord  Chamberlain,  and  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland.2 
But  the  critical  emergency  of  that  occasion  scarcely  afforded 
an  example  to  be  followed,  except  where  some  public  danger 
is  to  be  averted.  The  queen  was  upon  her  death-bed  : the 
succession  was  disputed,  — a civil  war  was  impending,  — and 
the  queen’s  ministers  had  been  in  secret  correspondence  with 
the  Pretender.  At  such  a time  of  peril,  any  means  of 
strengthening  the  executive  authority  were  justifiable  ; but 
to  resort  to  a similar  expedient,  when  no  danger  threatened 
the  state,  and  merely  for  the  purpose  of  concerting  minis- 
terial arrangements  and  party  combinations,  — if  justifiable 
on  other  grounds,  — could  scarcely  be  defended  on  the  plea 
of  precedent.  Its  justification,  if  possible,  was  rather  to  be 
sought  in  the  temporary  and  provisional  nature  of  the  ar- 
rangement. The  king  had  dismissed  his  ministers,  and  had 
resolved  to  intrust  to  Sir  Robert  Peel  the  formation  of 
another  ministry.  The  accident  of  Sir  Robert’s  absence 

1 Sir  Robert  Peel  himself  appears  to  have  admitted  that  he  could  not 
have  depended  upon  more  than  130  votes.  — Speech  of  Lord  John  Russell , 
Hansard's  Debates , 3d  Ser.,  xxvi.  293*. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xxvi.  224. 


128 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


deferred,  for  a time,  the  carrying  out  of  his  Majesty’s  resolu- 
tion ; and  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  in  the  interval,  adminis- 
tered the  executive  business  of  several  departments  of  the 
Government,  in  the  same  manner  as  outgoing  ministers  gen- 
erally undertake  its  administration,  until  their  successors  are 
appointed.  The  provisional  character  of  this  inter-ministerial 
government  was  shown  by  the  circumstances  stated  by  the 
duke  himself,  “ that  during  the  whole  time  he  held  the  seals, 
there  was  not  a single  office  disposed  of,  nor  an  act  done, 
which  was  not  essentially  necessary  for  the  service  of  the 
king,  and  of  the  country.” 1 That  it  was  an  expedient  of 
doubtful  and  anomalous  character,  — which,  if  drawn  into 
precedent,  might  be  the  means  of  abuses  dangerous  to  the 
state,  — could  scarcely  be  denied  ; but  as  the  duke  had 
exercised  the  extraordinary  powers  intrusted  to  him,  with 
honor  and  good  faith,  his  conduct,  though  exposed  to  invec- 
tive, ridicule,  and  caricature,2  did  not  become  an  object  of 
parliamentary  censure.  Such  was  the  temper  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  that  had  the  duke’s  “ dictatorship,”  — as  it  was 
called,  — been  more  open  to  animadversion,  it  had  little  to 
expect  from  their  forbearance. 

If  any  man  could  have  accomplished  the  task  which  the 

Sir  Robert  king  had  so  inconsiderately  imposed  upon  his  min- 

Peeias  pre-  ister,  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  unquestionably  the  man 
mier,  1834.  ....  , . _ J 1 

most  likely  to  succeed.  He  perceived  at  once  the 

impossibility  of  meeting  the  existing  House  of  Commons,  at 
the  head  of  a Tory  administration ; and  the  king  was  there- 
fore advised  to  dissolve  Parliament. 

So  completely  had  the  theory  of  ministerial  responsibility 
Assumes  the  been  now  established,  that,  though  Sir  Robert  Peel 
ofthe  king’s^  was  out  ^he  realm  when  the  late  ministers  were 
acts-  dismissed,  — though  he  could  have  had  no  cogni- 

1 Duke  of  Wellington’s  Explanations,  Feb.  24,  1835;  Hansard’s  Deb., 
3d  Ser.,  xxvii.  85. 

2 H.  B.  represented  the  duke,  in  multiform  characters,  occupying  every 
seat  at  the  Council  Board. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN.  129 

zance  of  the  causes  which  induced  the  king  to  dismiss  them, 

— though  the  Duke  of  Wellington  had  been  invested  with 
the  sole  government  of  the  country,  without  his  knowledge, 

— he  yet  boldly  avowed  that,  by  accepting  office  after  these 
events,  he  became  constitutionally  responsible  for  them  all, 

— as  if  he  had  himself  advised  them.1  He  did  not  attempt, 
like  the  ministers  of  1807,  to  absolve  himself  from  censure 
for  the  acts  of  the  Crown,  and  at  the  same  time  to  denounce 
the  criticism  of  Parliament,  as  an  arraignment  of  the  per- 
sonal conduct  of  the  king : but  manfully  accepted  the  full 
responsibility  which  had  devolved  upon  him. 

The  minister  could  scarcely  have  expected  to  obtain  a ma- 
jority in  the  new  Parliament ; but  he  relied  upon  The  new  Par- 
the  reaction  in  favor  of  Tory  principles,  which  he  liament> 1835, 
knew  to  have  commenced  in  the  country,  and  which  had 
encouraged  the  king  to  dismiss  Lord  Melbourne.  His  party 
was  greatly  strengthened  by  the  elections  ; but  was  still  une- 
qual to  the  force  of  the  Opposition.  Yet  he  hoped  for  for- 
bearance, and  a “ fair  trial ; ” and  trusted  to  the  eventual 
success  of  a policy  as  liberal,  in  its  general  outline,  as  that  of 
the  Whigs.  But  he  had  only  disappointments  and  provoca- 
tions to  endure.  A hostile  and  enraged  majority  confronted 
him  in  the  House  of  Commons,  — comprising  every  section 
of  the  “liberal  party,” — -and  determined  to  give  him  no 
quarter.  He  was  defeated  on  the  election  of  the  Speaker, 
where  at  least  he  had  deemed  himself  secure  ; and  again 
upon  the  address,  when  an  amendment  was  voted  condem- 
ning the  recent  dissolution  as  unnecessary;2  and, — -not  to 
mention  minor  discomfitures,  — he  was  at  length  defeated 
on  a resolution,  affirming  that  no  measure  on  the  subject 
of  tithes  in  Ireland  would  be  satisfactory,  that  did  not  pro- 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xxvi.  216,  223. 

2 It  lamented  that  the  progress  of  “ reforms  should  have  been  inter- 
rupted and  endangered  by  the  unnecessary  dissolution  of  a Parliament  ear- 
nestly intent  upon  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  measures,  to  which  the 
wishes  of  the  people  were  most  anxiously  and  justly  directed.” — Com. 
Journ.,  xc.  8.  Hansard’s  Deb.,  xxvi.,  3d  Ser.,  26,  151,  410,  425. 

VOL.  i.  9 


130 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


vide  for  the  appropriation  of  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  Irish 
Church.1 

These  few  weeks  formed  the  most  brilliant  episode  in  Sir 
Efforts  of  Sir  Robert  Peel’s  distinguished  parliamentary  career. 
Robert  Peel  com^{ne^  the  temper,  tact,  and  courage  of  a 

great  political  leader,  with  oratory  of  a higher  order  than  he 
had  ever  previously  attained.  He  displayed  all  the  great 
qualities  by  which  Mr.  Pitt  had  been  distinguished,  in  face  of 
an  adverse  majority,  with  a more  conciliating  temper,  and  a 
bearing  less  haughty.  Under  similar  circumstances,  perhaps, 
his  success  might  have  been  equal.  But  Mr.  Pitt  had  still 
a dissolution  before  him,  supported  by  the  vast  influence  of 
the  Crown  : Sir  Robert  Peel  had  already  tried  that  venture, 
under  every  disadvantage,  — and  no  resource  was  left  him, 
but  an  honorable  retirement  from  a hopeless  struggle. 

He  resigned,  and  Lord  Melbourne’s  government,  with 
some  alterations,  was  reinstated.  The  stroke  of 

His  resigna- 
tion. Causes  prerogative  had  failed ; and  its  failure  offers  an 

’ instructive  illustration  of  the  effects  of  the  Reform 
Act,  in  diminishing  the  ascendant  influence  of  the  Crown.  In 
George  the  Third’s  time,  the  dismissal  of  a ministry  by  the 
king,  and  the  transfer  of  his  confidence  to  their  opponents,  — 
followed  by  an  appeal  to  the  country,  — would  certainly  have 
secured  a majority  for  the  new  ministers.  Such  had  been 
the  effect  of  a dissolution  in  1784,  after  the  dismissal  of  the 
Coalition  Ministry  : such  had  been  the  effect  of  a dissolution 
in  1807,  on  the  dismissal  of  “All  the  Talents.”  But  the  fail- 
ure of  this  attempt  to  convert  Parliament  from  one  policy  to 
another,  by  the  prerogative  and  influence  of  the  Crown, 
proved  that  the  opinion  of  the  people  must  now  be  changed, 
before  ministers  can  reckon  upon  a conversion  of  the  Parlia- 
ment. It  is  true  that  the  whole  of  these  proceedings  had 
been  ill  advised  on  the  part  of  the  king,  even  in  the  interests 
of  the  party  whom  he  was  anxious  to  serve ; but  there  had 
been  times  within  the  memory  of  many  statesmen  then  liv- 
1 Com.  Journ.,  xc.  208. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


131 


ing,  when  equal  indiscretion  would  not  have  incurred  the 
least  risk  of  defeat. 

The  second  ministry  of  Lord  Melbourne,  though  rapidly 
sinking  in  the  estimation  of  their  own  supporters,  — 

° . Lord  Mel- 

and  especially  of  the  extreme,  or  “ radical  party,  bourne’s  sec- 

, A x * , ond  ministry. 

— while  their  opponents  were  gaming  strength  and 
popularity  in  the  country,  — continued  in  office  during  the 
two  remaining  years  of  the  king’s  reign,  without  recovering 
his  favor. 

Her  Majesty,  on  her  most  auspicious  accession  to  the 
throne,  finding  them  the  ministers  of  the  Crown,  Accession  of 
immediately  honored  them  with  her  entire  confi-  her  Maj*esty- 
dence.  The  occasion  was  especially  favorable  for  ministers 
to  secure  and  perpetuate  such  confidence.  The  young  queen, 
having  no  political  experience,  was  without  predilections  ; and 
the  impressions  first  made  upon  her  mind  were  likely  to  be 
lasting.  A royal  household  was  immediately  to  be  Her  house- 
organized  for  her  Majesty,  comprising  nQt  merely  hold' 
the  officers  of  state  and  ceremony ; but,  — what  was  more 
important  to  a queen,  — all  the  ladies  of  her  court.  The 
ministers  appointed  the  former,  as  usual,  from  among  their 
own  parliamentary  supporters  ; and  extended  the  same  prin- 
ciple of  selection  to  the  latter.  Nearly  all  the  ladies  of  the 
new  court  were  related  to  the  ministers  themselves,  or  to 
their  political  adherents.  The  entire  court  thus  became 
identified  with  the  ministers  of  the  day.  If  such  an  arrange- 
ment was  calculated  to  insure  the  confidence  of  the  Crown, 

— and  who  could  doubt  that  it  was  ? — it  necessarily  in- 
volved the  principle  of  replacing  this  household  with  another, 
on  a change  of  ministry.  This  was  foreseen  at  the  time,  and 
soon  afterwards  became  a question  of  some  constitutional  dif- 
ficulty. 

The  favor  of  the  ministers  at  court  became  a subject  of 
jealousy,  and  even  of  reproach,  amongst  their  op-  The«Bed_ 
ponents  ; but  the  age  had  passed  away,  in  which  chamber 
court  iavor  alone  could  uphold  a falling  ministry 


132 


REIGN  OF  QUEEN  VICTORIA. 


against  public  opinion.  They  were  weaker  now,  with  the 
court  on  their  side,  than  they  had  been  during  the  late  reign, 
with  the  influence  of  the  king  and  his  court  opposed  to  them  ; 
and  in  May,  1839,  were  obliged  to  offer  their  resignation. 
Sir  Robert  Peel,  being  charged  with  the  formation  of  a new 
administration,  had  to  consider  the  peculiar  position  of  the 
household.  Since  Lord  Moira’s  memorable  negotiations  in 
1812,  there  had  been  no  difficulties  regarding  those  offices  in 
the  household,  which  were  included  in  ministerial  changes ; 
but  the  court  of  a queen,  constituted  like  the  present,  raised 
a new  and  embarrassing  question.1  To  remove  from  the 
society  of  her  Majesty,  those  ladies  who  were  immediately 
about  her  person,  appeared  like  an  interference  with  her 
family  circle,  rather  than  with  her  household.  Yet  could 
ministers  undertake  the  government,  if  the  queen  continued 
to  be  surrounded  by  the  wives,  sisters,  and  near  relatives  of 
their  political  opponents  ? They  decided  that  they  could  not ; 
and  Sir  Robert  Peel  went  to  the  palace  to  acquaint  her 
Majesty  that  the  ministerial  changes  would  comprise  the 
higher  offices  of  her  court  occupied  by  ladies,  including  the 
ladies  of  her  bedchamber.  The  queen  met  him  by  at  once 
declaring  that  she  could  not  admit  any  change  of  the  ladies 
of  her  household.  On  appealing  to  Lord  John  Russell  on 
this  subject,  her  Majesty  was  assured  that  she  was  justified, 
by  usage,  in  declining  the  change  proposed  ; and  afterwards, 
by  the  advice  of  Lord  Melbourne  and  his  colleagues,  she  ad- 
dressed a letter  to  Sir  Robert  Peel,  stating  that  she  could  not 
“ consent  to  adopt  a course  which  she  conceived  to  be  con- 
trary to  usage,  and  which  was  repugnant  to  her  feelings.”  2 
Sir  Robert  Peel,  on  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  wrote  to  her 
Majesty  to  resign  the  trust  he  had  undertaken  : stating  that 
it  was  essential  to  the  success  of  the  commission  with  which 
he  had  been  honored  “ that  he  should  have  that  public  proof 
of  her  Majesty’s  entire  support  and  confidence,  which  would 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  xlvii.  985,  et  seq .,  and  see  supra , p.  111. 

2 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Series,  xlvii.  985. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN.  138 

be  afforded  by  the  permission  to  make  some  changes  in  that 
part  of  her  Majesty’s  household,  which  her  Majesty  resolved 
on  maintaining  entirely  without  change.”  1 By  a minute  of 
the  cabinet,  immediately  after  these  events,  the  ministry  of 
Lord  Melbourne  recorded  their  opinion  “ that  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  to  the  administration  that  character  of  efficiency  and 
stability,  and  those  marks  of  constitutional  support  of  the 
Crown,  which  are  required  to  enable  it  to  act  usefully  to  the 
public  service,  it  is  reasonable  that  the  great  offices  of  the 
court,  and  situations  in  the  household  held  by  members  of 
Parliament,  should  be  included  in  the  political  arrangements 
made  on  a change  of  the  administration  ; but  they  are  not 
of  opinion  that  a similar  principle  should  be  applied,  or  ex- 
tended, to  the  offices  held  by  ladies  in  her  Majesty’s  house- 
hold.” 2 

In  the  ministerial  explanations  which  ensued,  Sir  Robert 
Peel  pointed  out  forcibly  the  difficulties  which  any  minister 
must  be  prepared  to  encounter,  who  should  leave  about  her 
Majesty’s  person,  the  nearest  relatives  of  his  political  oppo- 
nents. It  had  not  been  his  intention  to  suggest  the  removal 
of  ladies,  — even  from  the  higher  offices  of  the  household,  — 
who  were  free  from  strong  party  or  political  connection ; but 
those  who  were  nearly  related  to  the  outgoing  ministers,  he 
had  deemed  it  impossible  to  retain.  The  ministers,  on  the 
other  hand,  maintained  that  they  were  supported  by  prece- 
dents, in  the  advice  which  they  had  tendered  to  her  Majesty. 
They  referred  to  the  examples  of  Lady  Sunderland  and  Lady 
Rialton,  who  had  remained  in  the  bedchamber  of  Queen 
Anne,  for  a year  and  a half  after  the  dismissal  of  their  hus- 
bands from  office ; and  to  the  uniform  practice  by  which  the 
ladies  of  the  household  of  every  queen  consort  had  been 
retained,  on  changes  of  administration,  notwithstanding  their 
close  relationship  to  men  engaged  in  political  life.  The 
ministers  also  insisted  much  upon  the  respect  due  to  the 
personal  feelings  of  her  Majesty,  and  to  her  natural  repug- 
1 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Series,  xlvii.  986.  2 Ibid.,  1001. 


134 


REIGN  OF  QUEEN  VICTORIA. 


nance  to  sacrifice  her  domestic  society  to  political  arrange- 
ments.1 

The  “ Bedchamber  Question  ” saved  Lord  Melbourne’s 
increased  government  for  a further  term.  Sir  Robert  Peel 
Lord  Mei  °f  experienced  the  evil  consequences  of  the  late 
bourne js  gov-  king’s  premature  recall  of  his  party  to  office  ; and 
his  prospects  in  the  country  were  not  even  yet 
assured.  The  immediate  result  of  the  Bedchamber  Question 
was,  therefore,  not  less  satisfactory  to  himself  than  to  the 
ministers.  The  latter  gained  no  moral  strength,  by  owing 
their  continuance  in  office  to  such  a cause  ; while  the  former 
was  prepared  to  profit  by  their  increasing  weakness.  The 
queen’s  confidence  in  her  ministers  was  undiminished ; yet 
they  continued  to  lose  ground  in  Parliament,  and  in  the 
country.  In  1841,  the  Opposition,  being  fully  assured  of 
their  growing  strength,  obtained,  by  a majority  of  one,  a 
resolution  of  the  Commons,  affirming  that  the  ministers  had 
not  the  confidence  of  the  House  ; and  “ that  their  continuance 
in  office,  under  such  circumstances,  was  at  variance  with  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution.”  The  country  was  immediately 
appealed  to  upon  this  issue ; and  it  soon  became  clear  that 
the  country  was  also  adverse  to  the  ministers.  Delay  had 
been  fatal  to  them,  while  it  had  assured  the  triumph  of  their 
opponents.  At  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament,  amend- 
ments to  the  address  were  agreed  to  in  both  Houses,  by 
large  majorities,  repeating  the  verdict  of  the  late  House  of 
Commons.2 

Sir  Robert  Peel  was  now  called  upon,  at  a time  of  his 
Sir  Robert  own  choosing,  to  form  a government.  Supported 
administra-nd  by  Parliament  and  the  country,  he  had  nothing  to 
tion,  1841.  fear  from  court  influence,  even  if  there  had  been 
any  disposition  to  use  it  against  him.  No  difficulties  were 
The  house-  again  raised  on  the  Bedchamber  Question.  Her 
hoid.  Majesty  was  now  sensible  that  the  position  she 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  xlvii.  979,  1008. 

2 In  the  Lords  by  a majority  of  72,  and  in  the  Commons  by  a majority 
of  91. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


135 


had  once  been  advised  to  assert,  was  constitutionally  untena- 
ble. The  principle  which  Sir  Robert  Peel  applied  to  the 
household,  has  since  been  admitted,  on  all  sides,  to  be  con- 
stitutional. The  offices  of  mistress  of  the  robes  and  ladies 
of  the  bedchamber,  when  held  by  ladies  connected  with  the 
outgoing  ministers,  have  been  considered  as  included  in  the 
ministerial  arrangements.  But  ladies  of  the  bedchamber 
belonging  to  families  whose  political  connection  has  been 
less  pronounced,  have  been  suffered  to  remain  in  the  house- 
hold, without  objection,  on  a change  of  ministry. 

In  1851,  an  incident  occurred  which  illustrates  the  rela- 
tions of  ministers  to  the  Crown,  — the  discretion  Relations  of  a 
vested  in  them ; and  the  circumstances  under  gtatlfto  the 
which  the  pleasure  of  the  sovereign  is  to  be  sig-  Crovvn* 
nified,  concerning  acts  of  the  executive  government.  To  all 
important  acts,  by  which  the  Crown  becomes  committed,  it 
had  been  generally  acknowledged  that  the  sanction  of  the 
sovereign  must  be  previously  signified.  And  in  1850  her 
Majesty  communicated  to  Lord  Palmerston,  the  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  — through  Lord  John  Russell, 
her  first  minister,  — a memorandum,  giving  specific  direc- 
tions as  to  the  transaction  of  business  between  the  Crown 
and  the  secretary  of  state.  It  was  in  these  words  : — “ The 
queen  requires,  first,  that  Lord  Palmerston  will  The  ueen,8 
distinctly  state  what  he  proposes  in  a given  case,  memoran- 
m order  that  the  queen  may  know  as  distinctly  to 
what  she  is  giving  her  royal  sanction.  Secondly,  having 
once  given  her  sanction  to  a measure,  that  it  be  not  arbi- 
trarily altered  or  modified  by  the  minister.  Such  an  act  she 
must  consider  as  failing  in  sincerity  towards  the  Crown,  and 
justly  to  be  visited  by  the  exercise  of  her  constitutional 
right  of  dismissing  that  minister.  She  expects  to  be  kept 
informed  of  what  passes  between  him  and  the  foreign  minis- 
ters, before  important  decisions  are  taken,  based  upon  that 
intercourse  ; to  receive  the  foreign  despatches  in  good  time ; 
and  to  have  the  drafts  for  her  approval,  sent  to  her  in  suffi- 


136 


REIGN  OF  QUEEN  VICTORIA. 


cient  time  to  make  herself  acquainted  with  their  contents, 
before  they  must  be  sent  off.” 1 

Such  being  the  relations  of  the  foreign  secretary  to  the 
Crown,  the  sovereign  is  advised  upon  questions  of  foreign 
policy  by  her  first  minister,  to  whom  copies  of  despatches 
and  other  information  are  also  communicated,  in  order  to 
enable  him  to  give  such  advice  effectually.2  In  controlling 
one  minister,  the  sovereign  yet  acts  upon  the  counsels  and 
responsibility  of  another. 

Immediately  after  the  coup  cT  etat  of  the  2d  December, 
Lord  Palm-  1851,  in  Paris,  the  cabinet  determined  that  the 
movai  from"  Government  of  this  country  should  abstain  from 
office  m 1851.  any  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  France  ; 
and  a despatch  to  that  effect,  approved  by  the  queen,  was 
addressed  to  Lord  Normanby,  the  British  ambassador  in 
Paris.  But  before  this  official  communication  was  written, 
it  appeared  that  M.  Walewski,  the  French  ambassador  at 
the  Court  of  St.  James’s,  had  assured  his  own  Government, 
that  Lord  Palmerston  had  “ expressed  to  him  his  entire  ap- 
probation of  the  act  of  the  president,  and  his  conviction  that 
he  could  not  have  acted  otherwise  than  he  had  done.”  This 
statement  having  been  communicated  to  Lord  Normanby  by 
M.  Turgot,  was  reported  by  him  to  Lord  Palmerston.  On 
receiving  a copy  of  Lord  Normanby’s  letter,  Lord  John 
Russell  immediately  wrote  to  Lord  Palmerston  requiring 
explanations  of  the  variance  between  his  verbal  commu- 
nications with  the  French  ambassador,  and  the  despatch 
agreed  upon  by  the  cabinet;  and  a few  days  afterwards 
her  Majesty  also  demanded  similar  explanations.  These 
were  delayed  for  several  days ; and  in  the  mean  time,  in 
reply  to  another  letter  from  Lord  Normanby,  Lord  Palm- 
erston, on  the  16th  of  December,  wrote  to  his  lordship,  ex- 
plaining his  own  views  in  favor  of  the  policy  of  the  recent 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Series,  cxix.  90. 

2 Sir  Robert  Peel’s  evidence  before  Select  Committee  on  Official  Salaries. 
Statement  by  Lord  J.  Russell ; Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Series,  cxix.  91. 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


137 


coup  d’  etat.  On  receiving  a copy  of  this  correspondence, 
Lord  John  Russell  conceived  that  the  secretary  of  state  was 
* not  justified  in  expressing  such  opinions,  without  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Crown  and  the  concurrence  of  the  cabinet,  — 
more  particularly  as  these  opinions  were  opposed  to  the  pol- 
icy of  non-intervention  upon  which  the  cabinet  had  deter- 
mined, and  inconsistent  with  that  moral  support  and  sympa- 
thy, which  England  had  generally  offered  to  constitutional 
government  in  foreign  countries.  The  explanations  which 
ensued  were  not  deemed  satisfactory  ; and  Lord  Palmerston 
was  accordingly  removed  from  office,  on  the  ground  that  he 
had  exceeded  his  authority  as  secretary  of  state,  and  had 
taken  upon  himself  alone,  to  be  the  organ  of  the  queen’s 
government.1 

In  defence  of  his  own  conduct,  Lord  Palmerston,  while 
fully  recognizing  the  principles  upon  which  a secretary  of 
state  is  required  to  act  in  relation  to  the  Crown  and  his  own 
colleagues,  explained  that  his  conversation  with  Count  Wa- 
lewski  on  the  3d  of  December,  and  his  explanatory  letter  to 
Lord  Normanby  on  the  16th,  were  not  inconsistent  with  the 
policy  of  non-intervention  upon  which  the  cabinet  had  re- 
solved ; that  whatever  opinions  he  might  have  expressed, 
were  merely  his  own ; and  that  he  had  given  no  official  in- 
structions or  assurances  on  the  part  of  the  Government, 
except  in  the  despatch  of  the  5th  of  December,  which  her 
Majesty  and  the  cabinet  had  approved. 

Though  the  premier  and  the  secretary  of  state  had  * dif- 
fered as  to  the  propriety  of  the  particular  acts  of  the  latter, 
they  were  agreed  upon  the  general  principles  which  regulate 
the  relations  of  ministers  to  the  Crown.  These  events  ex- 
emplify the  effective  control  which  the  Crown  constitution- 
ally exercises  in  the  government  of  the  country.  The  policy 
and  conduct  of  its  ministers  are  subject  to  its  active  super- 
vision. In  minor  affairs  the  ministers  have  a separate  dis- 
cretion, in  their  several  departments  ; but  in  the  general  acts 
1 Explanations  of  Lord  J.  Russell,  Feb.  3, 1852. 


138 


REIGN  OF  QUEEN  VICTORIA. 


of  the  government,  the  Crown  is  to  be  consulted,  and  has  a 
control  over  them  all. 

From  this  time  no  question  has  arisen  concerning  the 

wise  use  of  exercise  of  the  prerogatives  or  influence  of  the 

tihe  influence  Crown,  which  calls  for  notice.  Both  have  been 
of  the  Crown,  ... 

in  the  present  exercised  wisely,  justly,  and  in  the  true  spirit  of 
reign-  . . • . 

the  constitution.  Ministers,  enjoying  the  con- 
fidence of  Parliament,  have  never  claimed  in  vain  the 
confidence  of  the  Crown.  Their  measures  have  not  been 
thwarted  by  secret  influence,  and  irresponsible  advice.  Their 
policy  has  been  directed  by  Parliament  and  public  opinion, 
and  not  by  the  will  of  the  sovereign,  or  the  intrigues  of 
the  court.  Vast  as  is  the  power  of  the  Crown,  it  has  been 
exercised,  throughout  the  present  reign,  by  the  advice  of  re- 
sponsible ministers,  in  a constitutional  manner,  and  for  legiti- 
mate objects.  It  has  been  held  in  trust,  as  it  were,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people.  Hence  it  has  ceased  to  excite  either 
the  jealousy  of  rival  parties,  or  popular  discontents. 

This  judicious  exercise  of  the  royal  authority,  while  it 
has  conduced  to  the  good  government  of  the  state,  has  sus- 
tained the  moral  influence  of  the  Crown ; and  the  devoted 
loyalty  of  a free  people,  which  her  Majesty’s  personal 
virtues  have  merited,  has  never  been  disturbed  by  the  voice 
of  faction. 

But  while  the  influence  of  the  Crown  in  the  government 
General  in-  of  the  country,  has  been  gradually  brought  into 
influence  0?  subordination  to  Parliament  and  public  opinion, 
the  Crown,  same  causes,  which,  for  more  than  a century 

and  a half,  contributed  to  its  enlargement,  have  never  ceased 
to  add  to  its  greatness.  The  national  expenditure  and  public 
establishments  have  been  increased  to  an  extent  which  alarms 
financiers ; armies  and  navies  have  been  maintained,  such 
as  at  no  former  period  had  been  endured  in  time  of  peace. 
Our  colonies  have  expanded  into  a vast  and  populous  em- 
pire ; and  her  Majesty,  invested  with  the  sovereignty  of  the 
East  Indies,  now  rules  over  two  hundred  millions  of  Asiatic 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  CROWN. 


139 


subjects.  Governors,  commanders-in-chief,  and  bishops  at- 
test her  supremacy  in  all  parts  of  the  world ; and  the  great- 
ness of  the  British  empire,  while  it  has  redounded  to  the 
glory  of  England,  has  widely  extended  the  influence  of  the 
Crown.  As  that  influence,  constitutionally  exercised,  has 
ceased  to  be  regarded  with  jealousy,  its  continued  enlarge- 
ment has  been  watched  by  Parliament  without  any  of  those 
efforts  to  restrain  it,  which  marked  the  parliamentary  history 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  On  the  contrary,  Parliament 
has  met  the  increasing  demands  of  a community  rapidly 
advancing  in  population  and  wealth,  by  constant  additions 
to  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  Crown.  The  judicial 
establishments  of  the  country  have  been  extended,  by  the 
appointment  of  more  judges  in  the  superior  courts,  — by  a 
large  staff  of  county  court  judges,  with  local  jurisdiction, — 
and  by  numerous  stipendiary  magistrates.  Offices  and  com- 
missions have  been  multiplied,  for  various  public  purposes ; 
and  all  these  appointments  proceed  from  the  same  high 
source  of  patronage  and  preferment.  Parliament  has  wisely 
excluded  all  these  officers,  with  a few  necessary  exceptions, 
from  the  privilege  of  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons ; but 
otherwise  these  extensive  means  of  influence  have  been  in- 
trusted to  the  executive  government,  without  any  apprehen- 
sion that  they  will  be  perverted  to  uses  injurious  to  the 
freedom,  or  public  interests  of  the  country. 

The  history  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown  has  now  been 
sketched,  for  a period  of  one  hundred  years.  We 

. . Continued  in- 

have  seen  George  ill.  jealous  ot  the  great  Whig  fluenceof 
families,  and  wresting  power  out  of  the  hands  of  great  families- 
his  ministers  : we  have  seen  ministers  becoming  more  ac- 
countable to  Parliament,  and  less  dependent  upon  the 
Crown ; but,  as  in  the  commencement  of  this  period,  a 
few  great  families  commanded  the  support  of  Parliament, 
and  engrossed  all  the  power  of  the  state,  — so  under  a more 
free  representation,  and  more  extended  responsibilities,  do 
we  see  nearly  the  same  families  still  in  the  ascendant.  De- 


140 


REIGN  OF  QUEEN  VICTORIA. 


prived  in  great  measure  of  their  direct  influence  over  Par- 
liament, * — their  general  weight  in  the  country,  and  in  the 
councils  of  the  state,  has  suffered  little  diminution.  Not- 
withstanding the  more  democratic  tendencies  of  later  times, 
rank  and  station  have  still  retained  the  respect  and  confi- 
dence of  the  people.  When  the  aristocracy  have  enjoyed 
too  exclusive  an  influence  in  the  government,  they  have 
aroused  jealousies  and  hostility ; but  when  duly  sharing 
power  with  other  classes,  and  admitting  the  just  claims  of 
talent,  they  have  prevailed  over  every  rival  and  adverse 
interest ; and,  — whatever  party  has  been  in  power,  — have 
still  been  the  rulers  of  the  state. 

In  a society  comprising  so  many  classes  as  that  of  Eng- 
land, the  highest  are  willingly  accepted  as  governors,  when 
their  personal  qualities  are  not  unequal  to  their  position. 
They  excite  less  jealousy  than  abler  men  of  inferior  social 
pretensions,  who  climb  to  power.  Born  and  nurtured  to 
influences,  they  have  studied  how  to  maintain  it.  That 
they  have  maintained  it  so  well,  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  wealth,  — an  expanding  society,  — and  popular 
influences,  is  mainly  due  to  their  progressive  policy.  As 
they  have  been  ready  to  advance  with  their  age,  the  people 
have  been  content  to  acknowledge  them  as  leaders ; but  had 
they  endeavored  to  stem  the  tide  of  public  opinion,  they 
would  have  been  swept  aside,  while  men  from  other  classes 
advanced  to  power* 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


141 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  during  the  Minority  or  Incapacity  of 

the  Sovereign.  — Illnesses  and  Regency  of  George  the  Third.  — Later 

Regency  Acts. 

We  have  seen  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  wielded  in 
the  plenitude  of  kingly  power.  Let  us  now  turn 

. _ „ n . . Prerogatives 

aside  tor  a while,  and  view  them  as  they  lay  inert  of  the  Crown 
in  the  powerless  hands  of  a stricken  king.  m abeyance' 

The  melancholy  illnesses  of  George  III.,  at  different  pe- 
riods of  his  reign,  involved  political  considerations  of  the 
highest  importance,  - — affecting  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Crown,  the  rights  of  the  royal  family,  the  duties  of  min- 
isters, and  the  authority  of  Parliament. 

The  king  was  seized  by  the  first  of  these  attacks  in  1765. 
Though  a young  man,  in  the  full  vigor  of  life,  Firgt  illnesg 
he  exhibited  those  symptoms  of  mental  disorder,  ofGteo. IIL 111 
which  were  afterwards  more  seriously  developed. 

But  the  knowledge  of  this  melancholy  circumstance  was  con- 
fined to  his  own  family,  and  personal  attendants.1  This . ill- 
ness, however,  had  been  in  other  respects  so  alarming,  that 
it  led  the  king  to  consider  the  necessity  of  providing  for  a 
regency,  in  case  of  his  death.  The  laws  of  England  rec- 
ognize no  incapacity  in  the  sovereign,  by  reason  of  nonage ; 
and  have  made  no  provision  for  the  guardianship  of  a king, 
or  for  the  government  of  his  kingdom,  during  his  minority.2 

1 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  122;  Adolphus’s  History,  i.  175,  n. ; Quarterly 
Review,  lxvi.  240,  by  Mr.  Croker. 

2 “ In  judgment  of  law,  the  king,  as  king,  cannot  be  said  to  be  a minor; 


142 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


Yet  the  common  sense  of  every  age  has  revolted  against  the 
anomaly  of  suffering  the  country  to  be  practically  governed 
by  an  infant  king.  Hence  special  provision  has  been  made 
for  each  occasion,  according  to  the  age  and  consanguinity  of 
the  surviving  relatives  of  the  minor ; and  as  such  provision 
involves  not  only  the  care  of  an  infant,  but  the  government 
of  the  country,  the  sanction  of  Parliament  has  necessarily 
been  required,  as  well  as  that  of  the  king. 

By  the  Regency  Act  of  1751,  passed  after  the  death  of 
Regency  Act  Frederick  Prince  of  Wales,  the  Princess  Dow- 
of  175L  ager  of  Wales  had  been  appointed  regent,  in  the 
event  of  the  demise  of  George  II.  before  the  Prince  of 
Wales,  or  any  other  of  her  children  succeeding  to  the  throne, 
had  attained  the  age  of  eighteen  years.  This  act  also  nomi- 
nated the  council  of  regency  ; but  empowered  the  king  to 
add  four  other  members  to  the  council,  by  instruments  under 
his  sign-manual,  to  be  opened  after  his  death.1  But  this 
precedent  deferred  too  much  to  the  judgment  of  Parliament, 
and  left  too  little  to  the  discretion  of  the  king  himself,  to  be 
acceptable  to  George  III.  He  desired  to  reserve  to  himself 
the  testamentary  disposition  of  his  prerogatives,  and  to  leave 
nothing  to  Parliament  but  the  formal  recognition  of  his 
power. 

The  original  scheme  of  the  regency,  as  proposed  by  the 
The  king’s  king,  in  1765,  was  as  strange  as  some  of  the  in- 
of  a regency,  cidents  connected  with  its  further  progress.  He 
1765-  had  formed  it  without  any  communication  with 

his  ministers,  who  consequently  received  it  with  distrust,  as 
the  work  of  Lord  Bute  and  the  king’s  friends,  of  whom  they 
were  sensitively  jealous.2  The  scheme  itself  was  one  to  in- 
vite suspicion.  It  was  obviously  proper,  that  the  appoint- 


for  when  the  royall  bodie  politique  of  the  king  doth  meete  with  the  natu- 
rall  capacity  in  one  person,  the  whole  bodie  shall  have  the  qualitie  of  the 
royall  politique,  which  is  the  greater  and  more  worthy,  and  wherein  is  no 
minoritie.”  — Co.  Litt.,  43. 

1 24  Geo.  II.,  c.  24;  Walpole’s  Mem.  Geo.  III.,  ii.  c.  102. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.,  ii.  99,  104:  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  183. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


143 


ment  of  a regent  should  be  expressly  made  by  Parliament. 
If  the  king  had  the  nomination,  there  could  be  no  certainty 
that  any  regent  would  be  appointed  : — he  might  become  in- 
capable and  die  intestate,  as  it  were ; and  this  contingency 
was  the  more  probable,  as  the  king’s  mind  had  recently  been 
affected.  But  his  Majesty  proposed  that  Parliament  should 
confer  upon  him  the  unconditional  right  of  appointing  any 
person  as  regent,  whom  he  should  select.1  Mr.  Grenville 
pressed  him  to  name  the  regent  in  his  speech,  but  was  unable 
to  persuade  him  to  adopt  that  suggestion.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  king  intended  that  the  queen  should  be 
regent;  but  he  was  believed  to  be  dying  of  consumption,2 
and  was  still  supposed  to  be  under  the  influence  of  his 
mother.  The  ministers  feared  lest  the  princess  might  event- 
ually be  appointed  regent,  and  Lord  Bute  admitted  to  the 
council  of  regency.  Some  even  went  so  far  as  to  conceive 
the  possibility  of  Lord  Bute’s  nomination  to  the  regency 
itself.3  It  was  ultimately  arranged  that  the  king  Modified  by 
should  nominate  the  regent  himself,  but  that  his  the  mimsters- 
choice  should  be  restricted  “ to  the  queen  and  any  other  per- 
son of  the  royal  family  usually  resident  in  England;”  4 5 and 
the  scheme  of  the  regency  was  proposed  to  Parliament  upon 
that  basis.6 

On  the  24th  of  April,  1765,  the  king  came  down  to  Par- 
liament and  made  a speech  to  both  houses,  recom-  The  king’s 
mending  to  their  consideration  the  expediency  of  speech* 
enabling  him  to  appoint,  66  from  time  to  time,  by  instrument 

1 Grenville  Papers  (Diary),  iii.  126,  129. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.,  ii.  98. 

3 Ibid.,  ii.  101,  104. 

4 Cabinet  Minute,  5th  April ; Grenville  Papers,  iii.  15,  16. 

5 Lord  John  Russell  says  that  the  ministers  “ unwisely  introduced  the 
bill  without  naming  the  regent,  or  placing  any  limit  on  the  king’s  nomina- 
tion.” (Introduction  to  3d  vol.  of  Bedford  Correspondence , xxxix.)  This 
was  not  precisely  the  fact,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  text ; but  ministers  were 

equally  blamable  for  not  insisting  that  the  queen  alone  should  be  the  re- 
gent. 


144 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


in  writing,  under  his  sign-manual,  either  the  queen,  or  any 
other  person  of  his  royal  family,  usually  residing  in  Great 
Britain,  to  be  the  guardian  of  his  successor,  and  the  regent 
of  these  kingdoms,  until  such  successor  shall  attain  the  age 
of  eighteen  years,”  — - subject  to  restrictions  similar  to  those 
contained  in  the  Regency  Act,  24  Geo.  II.,  — and  of  provid- 
ing for  a council  of  regency.  A joint  address  was  immedi- 
ately agreed  upon  by  both  Houses,  — ultra-loyal,  accord- 
ing to  the  fashion  of  the  time,  — approaching  his  “ sacred 
person  ” with  u reverence,”  “ affection,”  “ admiration,”  and 
“ gratitude  ; ” scarcely  venturing  to  comtemplate  the  possi- 
bility of  “ an  event  which,  if  it  shall  please  God  to  permit 
it,  must  overwhelm  his  Majesty’s  loyal  subjects  with  the  bit- 
terest distraction  of  grief ; ” and  promising  to  give  immediate 
attention  to  recommendations  which  were  the  result  of  the 
king’s  “ consummate  prudence,”  “ beneficent  intention,”  “ salu- 
tary designs,”  “ princely  wisdom,”  and  “ paternal  concern  for 
his  people.”  1 

A bill,  founded  upon  the  royal  speech,  was  immediately 
The  Regency  brought  into  the  House  of  Lords.  In  the  first 
Bill,  1765.  draft  of  the  bill,  the  king,  following  the  precedent 
of  1751,  had  reserved  to  himself  the  right  of  nominating 
four  members  of  the  council  of  regency  ; but  on  the  29th 
April,  he  sent  a message  to  the  Lords,  desiring  that  his  four 
brothers  and  his  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  should  be 
specified  in  the  bill ; and  reserving  to  himself  the  nomina- 
tion of  other  persons,  in  the  event  of  any  vacancy.2  The 
bill  was  read  a second  time  on  the  following  day.  But  first 
it  was  asked  if  the  queen  was  naturalized,  — and  if  not, 
whether  she  could  lawfully  be  regent.  This  question  was 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xvi.  53. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.,  ii.  109;  Lords’  Journ.,  xxxi.  162.  A memorial  by- 
Lord  Lyttelton  says,  “ While  the  bill  was  the  House  of  Lords,  the  clause 
naming  the  king’s  brothers  was  concerted,  with  the  Duke  of  Cumberland, 
unknown  to  the  ministry  till  the  king  sent  to  them.  They,  to  return  the 
compliment,  framed  the  clause  for  omitting  the  princess  dowager,  and  pro- 
cured the  king’s  consent  to  it.”  — Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  183. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


145 


referred  to  the  judges,  who  were  unanimously  of  opinion, 
“ that  an  alien  married  to  a king  of  Great  Britain  is,  by 
operation  of  the  law  of  the  Crown  (which  is  a part  of  the 
common  law),  to  be  deemed  a natural-born  subject  from  the 
time  of  such  marriage ; so  as  not  to  be  disabled  by  the  Act 
of  the  12th  William  III.,  or  by  any  other  Act,  from  holding 
and  enjoying  any  office  or  place  of  trust,  or  from  having  any 
grant  of  lands,  &c.,  from  the  Crown.”  1 Then,  suddenly  a 
doubt  arose  whether  the  king’s  mother,  the  Princess  of 
Wales,  was  comprehended  in  the  “ royal  family  ” or  not.  It 
was  suggested  that  this  term  applied  only  to  members  of  the 
royal  family  in  the  line  of  succession  to  the  Crown,  and 
would  not  extend  beyond  the  descendants  of  the  late  king.2 
There  can  be  no  question  that  the  king,  in  his  speech,  had 
intended  to  include  the  princess ; and  even  the  doubt  which 
was  afterwards  raised,  was  not  shared  by  all  the  members 
of  the  cabinet,  — and  by  the  Lord  Chancellor  was  thought 
unfounded.3  Whether  it  had  occurred  to  those  by  whom  the 
words  had  been  suggested  to  the  king,  is  doubtful. 

On  the  1st  May,  Lord  Lyttelton  moved  an  address,  pray- 
ing the  king  to  name  the  regent,  which  was  re-  Exclusion  of 
iected.  On  the  2d,  the  Duke  of  Richmond  moved  the  Princess 
an  amendment  in  committee,  defining  the  persons 
capable  of  the  regency  to  be  the  queen,  the  princess  dowager, 
and  the  descendants  of  the  late  king.  Strange  as  it  may 
seem,  the  ministers  resisted  this  amendment,  and  it  was  neg- 
atived.4 The  doubt  which  had  been  thus  raised  concerning 
the  Princess  of  Wales  had  not  been  removed,  when,  on  the 
following  day,  Lord  Halifax  and  Lord  Sandwich  had  an  au- 
dience of  the  king,  and  represented,  that  if  the  Lords  should 
insert  the  princess’s  name  in  the  bill,  the  Commons  would 
strike  it  out  again  ; and  that  such  an  insult  might  best  be 

1 Lords’  Journ.,  xxxi.  174. 

2 Grenville  Papers  (Diary),  iii.  125-148;  Walpole’s  Mem.,  ii.  118. 

3 Ibid.,  148. 

4 Pari.  Hist.,  xvi.  55;  Rockingham  Mem.,  i.  183. 

VOL.  x.  10 


146 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


avoided  by  not  proposing  her  name  at  all.1  The  king  was 
taken  by  surprise,  and  either  misunderstood  the  proposal,  or 
failed  to  show  his  usual  firmness  and  courage  in  resisting  it.2 
Lord  Halifax  at  once  proceeded  to  the  House  of  Lords,  and 
moved  the  recommitment  of  the  bill,  according  to  the  alleged 
wishes  of  his  Majesty,  in  order  to  make  an  amendment, 
which  limited  the  regency  to  the  queen,  and  the  descendants 
of  the  late  king,  usually  resident  in  England.  Thus,  not 
satisfied  with  gaining  their  point,  ministers  had  the  cruelty 
and  assurance  to  make  the  king  himself  bear  the  blame  of 
proposing  an  affront  to  his  own  mother.  Well  might  Horace 
Walpole  exclaim  : “ And  thus  she  alone  is  rendered  incapable 
of  the  regency,  and  stigmatized  by  Act  of  Parliament ! ” 3 

The  king  had  no  sooner  given  his  consent  than  he  recoiled 
from  its  consequences,  — complained  that  he  had  been  be- 
trayed, — and  endeavored  to  obtain  the  insertion  of  his 
mother’s  name.  He  could  gain  no  satisfaction  from  his 
ministers ; 4 but  in  the  Commons,  the  friends  of  the  princess, 
encouraged  by  the  king  himself,  took  up  her  cause  ; and,  on 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Morton,  Chief  Justice  of  Chester,  which 
was  not  opposed  by  the  ministers,  — her  name 

Her  name  re-  . . , it, 

placed  in  the  was  inserted  in  the  bill,  lhe  king  had  been  as- 

J sured  that  the  Commons  would  strike  it  out : and 

yet,  after  the  House  of  Lords  had  omitted  it,  on  the  sup- 
posed authority  of  the  king,  there  were  only  thirty-seven 
members  found  to  vote  against  its  insertion,  while  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-seven  voted  in  its  favor ; 6 and  in  this  form 
the  bill  passed. 

1 Walpole’s  Mem.,  ii.  125. 

2 Grenville  Papers  (Diary),  iii.  149,  and  154,  n. 

3 Letter  to  Lord  Hertford,  May  5th. 

4 “ The  king  seemed  much  agitated,  and  felt  the  force  of  what  Mr.  Gren- 
ville said  in  regard  to  the  different  directions  given  to  his  servants  in  the 
two  Houses,  but  still  enforced  the  argument  of  this  being  moved  by  the 
gentlemen  of  the  Opposition.  The  king  was  in  the  utmost  degree  of  agi- 
tation and  emotion,  even  to  tears.”  — Mr.  Grenville's  Diary,  May  5th,  1765; 
Grenville  Papers , iii.  154. 

5 Mr.  Grenville’s  Report  of  the  Debate  to  the  King;  Grenville  Papers, 
iii.  25,  n. ; Walpole’s  Mem.  George  III.,  ii.  129-146. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


147 


Could  any  lover  of  mischief,  — could  Wilkes  himself,  — 
have  devised  more  embarrassments  and  cross  purposes,  than 
were  caused  by  this  unlucky  Regency  Bill  ? Faction  and 
intrigue  had  done  their  worst. 

The  Regency  Act 1 provided  for  the  nomination  by  the 
king,  under  his  sign-manual,  of  the  queen,  the 

^ _ & i n i i Provisions  of 

Princess  or  Wales,  or  a member  ot  the  royal  the  Regency 

family  descended  from  the  late  king,  to  be  the 
guardian  of  his  successor  while  under  eighteen  years  of  age, 
and  “ Regent  of  the  Kingdom,”  and  to  exercise  the  royal 
power  and  prerogatives.  His  nomination  was  to  be  signified 
by  three  instruments,  separately  signed,  and  sealed  up,  and 
deposited  with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  and  the  President  of  the  Council.  It  attached 
the  penalties  of  praemunire  to  any  one  who  should  open  these 
instruments  during  the  king’s  life,  or  afterwards  neglect  or 
refuse  to  produce  them  before  the  privy  council.  It  ap- 
pointed a council  of  regency,  consisting  of  the  king’s  brothers 
and  his  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  and  several  great 
officers  of  Church  and  State,  for  the  time  being.  In  case 
any  of  the  king’s  brothers  or  his  uncle  should  die,  or  be  ap- 
pointed regent,  it  gave  the  king  the  power  of  nominating 
another  person,  being  a natural-born  subject,  to  the  council 
of  regency,  by  instruments  under  his  hand  in  the  same  form 
as  those  appointing  the  regent.  The  act  also  defined  the 
powers  of  the  regent  and  council.  On  the  demise  of  his 
Majesty,  the  privy  council  was  directed  to  meet  and  pro- 
claim his  successor. 

The  king’s  next  illness  was  of  longer  duration,  and  of  a 
more  distressing  character.  It  was  the  occasion  of 

° The  king’s  ill— 

another  Regency  Bill,  and  of  proceedings  wholly  ness  in 
unprecedented.  In  the  summer  of  1788,  the  king  1/88  9‘ 
showed  evident  symptoms  of  derangement.  He  was  able, 
however,  to  sign  a warrant  for  the  further  prorogation  of 
Parliament  by  commission,  from  the  25th  September  to  the 
1 5 George  III.  c.  27. 


148 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


20th  November.  But,  in  the  interval,  the  king’s  malady  in- 
creased : he  was  wholly  deprived  of  reason,  and  placed  under 
restraint ; and  for  several  days  his  life  was  in  danger.1  As 
no  authority  could  be  obtained  from  him  for  a further  pro- 
rogation, both  Houses  assembled  on  the  20th  November, 
though  they  had  not  been  summoned  for  dispatch  of  business, 
and  no  causes  of  summons  could  be  communicated  to  them, 
in  the  accustomed  manner,  by  a speech  from  the  throne. 
These  circumstances  were  explained  in  both  Houses  ; and, 
on  the  suggestion  of  ministers,  they  agreed  to  adjourn  for  a 
fortnight,  and  to  summon  all  their  members,  by  circular  let- 
ters, to  attend  at  their  next  meeting.2  According  to  long 
established  law,  Parliament,  without  being  opened  by  the 
Crown,  had  no  authority  to  proceed  to  any  business  what- 
ever : but  the  necessity  of  an  occasion,  for  which  the  law  had 
made  no  provision,  was  now  superior  to  the  law  ; and  Par- 
liament accordingly  proceeded  to  deliberate  upon  the  mo- 
mentous questions  to  which  the  king’s  illness  had  given  rise. 

In  order  to  afford  Parliament  authentic  evidence  of  the 
king’s  condition,  his  five  physicians  were  exam- 

Examination  . , _ . ..  _ ■ 

of  the  king’s  med  by  the  privy  council  on  the  od  December, 
physicians,  qq^y  agreec[  that  the  king  was  then  incapable  of 
meeting  Parliament,  or  of  attending  to  any  business ; but 
believed  in  the  probability  of  his  ultimate  recovery,  although 
they  could  not  limit  the  time.  On  the  following  day  this 
evidence  was  laid  before  both  Houses  : but  as  doubts  were 
suggested  whether  Parliament  should  rest  satisfied  without 
receiving  the  personal  testimony  of  the  physicians,  it  was 

1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  363;  Lord  Auckland’s  Corr.  ii.  240-298.  At 
such  times  as  these,  political  events  pressed  heavily  on  the  king’s  mind. 
He  said  to  Lord  Thurlow  and  the  Duke  of  Leeds,  u Whatever  you  and  Mr. 
Pitt  may  think  or  feel,  I,  that  am  born  a gentleman,  shall  never  lay  my 
head  on  my  last  pillow  in  peace  and  quiet  as  long  as  I remember  the  loss 
of  my  American  colonies.”  Lord  Malm.  Corr.,  iv.  21.  On  a later  occasion, 
in  1801,  the  king’s  mind  showed  equally  strong  feelings  as  to  the  supposed 
dangers  of  the  Church. 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  653,  685.  The  House  of  Commons  was  also  ordered 
to  be  called  over  on  that  day. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


149 


afterwards  agreed  that  a committee  should  be  appointed,  in 
each  House,  for  that  purpose.  In  the  Lords  the  committee 
was  nominated  by  ballot,  each  peer  giving  in  a list  committees 
of  twenty-one  names.1  Meanwhile,  all  other  busi-  aPpomted- 
ness  was  suspended.  In  the  Commons,  the  speaker  even 
entertained  doubts  whether  any  new  writs  could  be  issued 
for  supplying  the  places  of  members  deceased ; but  Mr.  Pitt 
expressed  a decided  opinion,  “ that  though  no  act  could  take 
place  which  required  the  joint  concurrence  of  the  different 
branches  of  the  Legislature,  yet  each  of  them  in  its  separate 
capacity  was  fully  competent  to  the  exercise  of  those  powers 
which  concerned  its  own  orders  and  jurisdiction .”  2 And  in 
this  rational  view  the  House  acquiesced. 

The  reports  of  these  committees  merely  confirmed  the 
evidence  previously  given  before  the  privy  coun-  Committees 
cil ; and  the  facts  being  thus  established,  a com-  to  search  for 
mittee  was  moved  for,  in  either  House,  to  search  precedents- 
for  precedents  “ of  such  proceedings  as  may  have  been  had 
in  case  of  the  personal  exercise  of  the  royal  authority  being 
prevented  or  interrupted  by  infancy,  sickness,  infirmity,  or 
otherwise,  with  a view  to  provide  for  the  same.”  _ . . 

7 1 Doctrines  of 

When  this  motion  was  made  in  the  Commons,  Mr-  Fox  and 
Mr.  I ox  advanced  the  startling  opinion  that  the 
Prince  of  Wales  had  as  clear  a right  to  exercise  the  power 
of  sovereignty  during  the  king’s  incapacity,  as  if  the  king 
were  actually  dead ; and  that  it  was  merely  for  the  two 
Houses  of  Parliament  to  pronounce  at  what  time  he  should 
commence  the  exercise  of  his  right.3  To  assert  an  absolute 
right  of  inheritance  during  his  father’s  life,  in  defiance  of 
the  well-known  rule  of  law,  u nemo  est  hceres  viventis ,”  was 
to  argue  that  the  heir-at-law  is  entitled  to  enter  into  pos- 
session of  the  estate  of  a lunatic.  Mr.  Pitt,  on  the  other 
hand,  maintained  that  as  no  legal  provision  had  been  made 
for  carrying  on  the  government,  it  belonged  to  the  Houses  of 
Parliament  to  make  such  provision.  He  even  went  so  far 
1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  658.  2 Ibid.,  688.  3 Ibid.,  707. 


150 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


as  to  affirm,  that  “ unless  by  their  decision,  the  Prince  of 
Wales  had  no  more  right  — speaking  of  strict  right  — to 
assume  the  government,  than  any  other  individual  subject 
of  the  country/’ 1 — a position  as  objectionable  in  one  direc- 
tion, as  that  of  Mr.  Fox  in  the  other,2  — and  which  gave 
great  umbrage  to  the  prince  and  his  friends.  And  here  the 
two  parties  joined  issue. 

When  next  this  matter  was  discussed,  Mr.  Fox,  being 
Issue  taken  sensible  that  he  had  pressed  his  doctrine  of  right 
rights^of  the  beyond  its  constitutional  limits,  somewhat  receded 
Prmce.  from  his  first  ground.  He  now  spoke  of  the  prince 
having  a legal  claim  rather  than  a right  to  the  regency,  and 
contended  that  it  was  for  Parliament  to  adjudicate  upon  that 
claim,  which,  when  allowed,  would  become  an  absolute  title 
to  the  exercise  of  all  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  without  any 
limitation.  He  stated,  also,  that  he  spoke  merely  his  own 
opinion,  without  any  authority ; but  that  if  he  had  been  con- 
sulted, he  should  have  advised  a message  from  the  prince, 
stating  his  claim,  to  be  answered  by  a joint  address  of  both 
Houses,  calling  upon  him  to  exercise  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Crown.  It  was  now  his  main  position  that  no  restrictions 
should  be  imposed  upon  the  powers  of  the  regent.  But 
here,  again,  Mr.  Pitt  joined  issue  with  him  ; and  while  he 
agreed  that,  as  a matter  of  discretion,  the  Prince  of  Wales 
ought  to  be  the  regent,  with  all  necessary  authority,  — un- 
restrained by  any  permanent  council,  and  with  a free  choice 
of  his  political  servants  ; — he  yet  contended  that  any  power 
which  wTas  not  essential,  and  which  might  be  employed  to 
embarrass  the  exercise  of  the  king’s  authority,  in  the  event 
of  his  recovery,  ought  to  be  withheld.3  And  as  the  ques- 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  709. 

2 Lord  John  Russell  says,  “ The  doctrine  of  Mr.  Fox,  the  popular  leader, 
went  far  to  set  aside  the  constitutional  authority  of  Parliament,  while  that 
of  Mr.  Pitt,  the  organ  of  the  Crown,  tended  to  shake  the  stability  of  the 
monarchy,  and  to  peril  the  great  rule  of  hereditary  succession.”  — Memo- 
rials of  Fox , ii.  263. 

8 Dec.  12th.  Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  727. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


151 


tion  of  right  had  been  raised,  he  insisted  that  it  ought  first 
to  be  determined,  — since  if  the  right  should  be  held  to  ex- 
ist, Parliament  having  adjudicated  upon  such  right,  need  not 
deliberate  upon  any  further  measures. 

The  same  questions  were  debated  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
where  the  Duke  of  York  said  that  no  claim  of  The  Prince  of 
right  had  been  made  on  the  part  of  the  prince,  Sms  his" 
who  “ understood  too  well  the  sacred  principles  right> 
which  seated  the  House  of  Brunswick  on  the  throne,  ever 
to  assume  or  exercise  any  power,  be  his  claim  what  it  might, 
not  derived  from  the  will  of  the  people,  expressed  by  their 
representatives,  and  their  lordships  in  Parliament  assem- 
bled.” His  Royal  Highness,  therefore,  deprecated  pressing 
for  any  decision  on  that  point,  — in  which  the  Duke  of 
Gloucester  concurred.1 

Meanwhile,  the  prince  was  greatly  offended  by  Mr.  Pitt’s 
conduct,  and  wrote  to  the  chancellor  complaining  The  Prince  of- 
that  the  premier  had  publicly  announced  so  much  f^sdCon-Mr‘ 
of  his  scheme  of  regency,  and  was  prepared,  as  he  duct- 
conceived,  to  lay  it  still  more  fully  before  Parliament,  with- 
out having  previously  submitted  it  to  his  consideration.  He 
desired  that  Mr.  Pitt  would  send  him,  in  writing,  an  outline 
of  what  he  proposed.  Mr.  Pitt  immediately  wrote  to  the 
prince,  explaining  his  own  conduct,  and  stating  that  it  was 
not  his  intention  to  propose  any  specific  plan  until  the  right 
of  Parliament  to  consider  such  a plan  had  been  determined ; 
and  that  he  would  then  submit  to  his  Royal  Highness  the 
best  opinions  which  his  Majesty’s  servants  had  been  able  to 
give.2 

On  the  16th  December  the  House  resolved  itself  into  a 
committee  on  the  state  of  the  nation,  when  Mr.  , 

. . . Mr.  Pitt’s  pre- 

Pitt  again  enforced  the  right  of  Parliament  to  lira  inary  reso- 
appoint  a regent,  — fortifying  his  position  by  ref- 
erence to  the  report  of  precedents,3  which  had  then  been  re- 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  678,  684. 

2 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  388;  where  the  letter  is  printed  at  length. 

3 Commons’  Journ.,  xliv.  11;  Lords’  Journ.,  xxxviii.  276. 


152 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


ceived,  — and  arguing  ably  and  elaborately  that  neither  law, 
precedent,  nor  analogy  could  be  found  to  support  the  claim 
which  had  been  urged  on  behalf  of  the  Prince  of  Wales. 
He  concluded  by  moving  three  resolutions ; affirming,  first, 
that  the  personal  exercise  of  royal  authority  was  inter- 
rupted ; second,  the  right  of  the  two  Houses  to  supply  the 
defect  of  the  personal  exercise  of  the  royal  authority,  in 
such  manner  as  the  exigency  of  the  case  may  seem  to  re- 
quire ; and,  third,  the  necessity  of  “ determining  the  means 
by  which  the  royal  assent  may  be  given  to  bills  passed  by 
the  two  Houses  respecting  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of 
the  Crown,  during  the  continuance  of  the  king’s  indisposi- 
tion.” 

Mr.  Fox  argued,  ingeniously,  that  the  principles  main- 
tained by  Mr.  Pitt  tended  to  make  the  monarchy  elec- 
tive instead  of  hereditary;  and  that  if  Parliament  might 
elect  any  one  to  be  regent,  for  whatever  time  it  thought  fit, 
the  monarchy  would  become  a republic.  Nor  did  he  omit 
to  seek  for  support,  by  intimations  that  he  should  be  Mr. 
Pitt’s  successor,  under  the  regency. 

On  the  report  of  these  resolutions  to  the  House,1  Mr.  Pitt 
explained  (in  reference  to  his  third  resolution,  which  had 
not  been  clearly  understood),  that  he  intended,  when  the 
resolutions  had  been  agreed  to  by  both  Houses,  to  propose 
that  the  Lord  Chancellor  should  be  empowered,  by  a vote 
of  the  two  Houses,  to  affix  the  Great  Seal  to  commissions 
for  opening  the  Parliament,  and  for  giving  the  royal  assent 
to  a Regency  Bill.  The  propriety  of  this  singular  course 
of  proceeding  was  much  questioned ; but,  after  long  debates, 
the  resolutions  were  agreed  to,  and  communicated  to  the 
House  of  Lords  at  a conference.  In  that  House  the  same 
questions  were  debated,  and  Lord  Rawdon  moved  as  an 
amendment,  an  address  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  praying 
him  “ to  take  upon  himself,  as  sole  regent,  the  administration 
of  the  executive  government,  in  the  king’s  name.”  Lord 
1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  782.  Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  191. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


153 


Chancellor  Thurlow,  — though  faithless  to  his  colleagues, 
and  intriguing,  at  the  very  time,  with  the  queen  and  the 
Prince  of  Wales,1  — supported  the  ministerial  position  with 
great  force.  In  answer  to  Lord  Rawdon’s  amendment,  he 
“ begged  to  know  what  the  term  4 regent  ’ meant  ? where 
was  he  to  find  it  defined  ? in  what  law-book,  or  what  stat- 
ute ? He  had  heard  of  custodes  regni,  of  lieutenants  for 
the  king,  of  guardians  and  protectors,  and  of  lords-justices ; 
but  he  knew  not  where  to  look  for  an  explanation  of  the 
office  and  functions  of  regent.  To  what  end,  then,  would  it 
be  to  address  the  prince  to  take  upon  himself  an  office,  the 
boundaries  of  which  were  by  no  means  ascertained  ? . . . . 
What  was  meant  by  the  executive  government?  Did  it 
mean  the  whole  royal  authority  ? Did  it  mean  the  power 
of  legislation  ? Did  it  mean  all  the  sovereign’s  functions 
without  restriction  or  limitation  of  any  kind  whatsoever? 
If  it  did,  it  amounted  to  the  actual  dethroning  of  his  Maj- 
esty, and  wresting  the  sceptre  out  of  his  hand.”  2 All  the 
resolutions  were  agreed  to ; but  were  followed  by  a protest 
signed  by  forty-eight  peers.3 

The  perplexities  arising  out  of  the  incapacity  of  the  sov- 
ereign, — the  constitutional  source  and  origin  of 

, , . _ n Death  of  Mr. 

authority — were  now  increased  by  the  death  of  Speaker  Corn- 

Mr.  Cornwall,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Com-  wa 

mons.  His  Majesty’s  leave  could  not  be  signified  that  the 

1 Nicholls’s  Recollections,  71;  Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  iii.  c.  14;  Wilber- 
force’s  Life,  i.  App. ; Moore’s  Life  of  Sheridan,  ii.  31;  Lord  Campbell’s 
Lives  of  Chancellors,  v.  583,  et  seq. 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  885.  The  office  of  regent,  however,  does  not  appear 
to  be  wholly  without  recognition,  as  contended  by  the  chancellor  and  others. 
On  the  accession  of  Henry  III.,  a minor,  the  great  council  of  the  nation, 
assembled  at  Bristol,  appointed  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  regent,  as  “ Hector 
Regis  et  Regni'1  (Matthew  Paris,  Wats’s  2d  Ed.,  p.  245;  Carte’s  History 
of  Eng.,  ii.  2);  and  when  the  Duke  of  York  was  appointed  protector  by  the 
Parliament  during  the  illness  of  Hen.  VI.,  it  is  entered  in  the  rolls  of  Par- 
liament that  the  title  of  regent  was  not  given  him,  because  11  it  emported 
auctorite  of  governaunce  of  the  lande .”  Rot.  Pari.,  v.  242,  A.  d.  1454;  Ry- 
mer’s  Foedera,  v.  55. 

3 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  901. 


154 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


Commons  should  proceed  to  the  election  of  another  speaker ; 
nor  could  the  new  speaker,  when  elected,  be  presented  for 
the  king’s  approval.  But  the  necessity  of  the  occasion  sug- 
gested an  easy  expedient ; and  both  these  customary  formal- 
ities were  simply  dispensed  with,  without  any  attempt  to  as- 
sume the  appearance  of  the  royal  sanction.1 

All  these  preliminaries  being  settled,  Mr.  Pitt  now  sub- 
Mr.  Pitt  sub-  mitted  to  the  Prince  of  Wales  the  plan  of  regen- 
schemefto  the  cy  which  he  intended  to  propose.  The  limitations 
pnnee.  suggested  were  these  : — that  the  care  of  the 
king’s  person  and  household,  and  the  appointment  of  officers 
and  servants,  should  be  reserved  to  the  queen : — that  the 
regent  should  not  be  empowered  to  dispose  of  the  real  or 
personal  property  of  the  king,  or  to  grant  any  office  in  re- 
version, or  any  pension  or  office,  otherwise  than  during 
pleasure,  except  those  which  were  required  to  be  granted  for 
life,  or  during  good  behavior ; or  to  bestow  any  peerage  ex- 
cept upon  his  Majesty’s  issue,  having  attained  the  age  of 
twenty-one.2  These  limitations  were  suggested,  he  said,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  king’s  illness  would  not  be  of  long 
duration,  and  might  afterwards  be  revised  by  Parliament. 

The  prince’s  reply  to  this  communication  was  a most  skil- 
The  prince’s  ful  composition,  written  by  Burke  and  revised  by 
repiy.  Sheridan.3  He  regarded  the  restrictions  as  “a 
project  for  producing  weakness,  disorder,  and  insecurity  in 
every  branch  of  the  administration  of  affairs,  — a project 
for  dividing  the  royal  family  from  each  other,  for  separat- 
ing the  court  from  the  state ; — a scheme  disconnect- 
ing the  authority  to  command  service,  from  the  power  of 
animating  it  by  reward ; and  for  allotting  to  the  prince  all 
the  invidious  duties  of  government,  without  the  means  of 
softening  them  to  the  public,  by  any  act  of  grace,  favor,  or 
benignity.”  And  he  repudiated  as  unnecessary,  the  restric- 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  903, 1160. 

3 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  422.  Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  909. 

8 Moore’s  Life  of  Sheridan,  ii.  50. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


155 


tion  upon  his  granting  away  the  king’s  property,  — a power 
which  he  had  shown  no  inclination  to  possess.1 

But  before  Mr.  Pitt  was  able  to  bring  his  proposals  be- 
fore Parliament,  fresh  discussions  were  raised  by  Further  in- 
the  Opposition  on  the  state  of  the  king’s  health,  c^SngThe 
which  resulted  in  another  examination  of  his  king’s  health- 
physicians  by  a select  committee.  The  inquiry  lasted  for 
several  days  : but,  while  it  disclosed  much  party  spirit,  in- 
trigue, and  jealousy,  it  established  no  new  facts  concerning 
the  probable  recovery  of  the  royal  patient.2  The  least  hope-* 
ful  physicians  were  popular  with  the  Opposition : the  more 
sanguine  found  favor  with  the  court  and  the  ministers.  At 
length,  on  the  19th  January,  Mr.  Pitt  moved,  in 

® . . n , . _ Further  reso- 

committee  on  the  state  oi  the  nation,  five  resolu-  lutions  on  the 

tions  on  which  the  Regency  Bill  was  to  be  found- reg(mcy* 
ed.  After  animated  debates  they  were  all  agreed  to,  and 
communicated  at  a conference  to  the  Lords,  by  whom  they 
were  also  adopted ; but  not  without  a protest  signed  by  fifty- 
seven  peers,  headed  by  the  Dukes  of  York  and  Cumber- 
land. 

The  next  step  was  to  lay  these  resolutions  before  the 
prince ; and  to  ascertain  whether  he  would  accept  Laid  before 
the  regency,  with  the  conditions  attached  to  it  by  the  Prince- 
Parliament.  The  resolutions  were  accordingly  presented 
by  both  Houses ; and  the  prince,  out  of  respect  for  his 
father,  the  interests  of  the  people,  and  the  united  desires 
of  the  two  Houses,  consented  to  undertake  the  trust,  though 
he  felt  the  difficulties  which  must  attend  its  execution.  The 
resolutions  were  also  presented  to  the  queen,  and  received  a 
gracious  answer.3 

Another  technical  difficulty  wTas  still  to  be  overcome  be- 
fore the  Regency  Bill  could,  at  last,  be  introduced. 

° ’ ' Commission 

Parliament  had  not  yet  been  opened,  nor  the  for  opening 

n -iii*  . 0 ,,  Parliament. 

causes  oi  summons  declared,  in  a speech  from  the 

1 Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii.  425;  Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  910. 

2 Commons’  Journ.,  xliv.  47. 

3 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  1122. 


156 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


throne,  — formalities  always  held  to  be  essential  to  enable 
Parliament  to  proceed  with  its  legislative  business.  It  was 
Jan.  31, 1789.  now  proposed,  by  a vote  of  both  Houses,  to  author- 
ize the  passing  of  letters-patent  under  the  great  seal,  for  the 
opening  of  Parliament  by  commission.  The  necessity  of 
adopting  this  expedient  had  been  already  intimated,  and  had 
been  described  as  a “ phantom  ” of  royalty,  a “ fiction,1 ” and  a 
“ forgery.”  It  was  now  formally  proposed  by  ministers,  on 
the  ground  that  the  opening  of  Parliament,  by  royal  author- 
ity, was  essential  to  the  validity  of  its  proceedings;  that 
during  the  king’s  incapacity  such  authority  could  only  be 
signified  by  a commission  under  the  great  seal ; that  without 
the  direction  of  both  Houses,  the  Lord  Chancellor  could  not 
venture  to  affix  the  seal ; but  that  the  commission  being  once 
issued,  with  the  great  seal  annexed  to  it,  — the  instrument 
by  which  the  will  of  the  king  is  declared  — no  one  could 
question  its  legality.1  It  was  also  stated  that  the  royal  assent 
would  hereafter  be  signified  to  the  Regency  Bill  by  commis- 
sion, executed  in  the  same  way.  A precedent  in  1754  was 
further  relied  on,  in  which  Lord  Hardwicke  had  affixed  the 
great  seal  to  two  commissions,  — the  one  for  opening  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  other  for  passing  a bill,  during  a dangerous 
illness  of  George  II.2 

It  was  contended  on  the  other  side,  with  much  force,  that 
if  this  legal  fiction  were  necessary  at  all,  it  ought  to  have 
been  used  for  the  opening  of  Parliament  two  months  ago : 
that  hitherto  the  time  of  Parliament  had  been  wasted,  — its 
deliberations  unauthorized,  irregular,  and  fruitless.  But 
this  fiction  was  also  an  assumption  of  royal  authority.  The 
Houses  had  already  agreed  to  allot  one  portion  of  the  pre- 
rogatives to  the  queen,  and  another  to  the  regent,  and  now 
they  were  about  to  take  another  portion  themselves : but, 
after  all,  the  fictitious  use  of  the  king’s  name  would  be  illegal. 
By  the  33d  Henry  VIII.,  it  was  declared  that  a commission 

1 Lord  Camden’s  Speech.  Pari.  Hist,  xxvii.  1124. 

2 Speeches  of  Mr.  Pitt  and  Lord  Camden.  In  the  latter  this  precedent  is 
erroneously  assigned  to  1739. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


157 


for  giving  the  royal  assent  to  a bill  must  be  by  letters-patent 
under  the  great  seal,  and  signed  by  the  king’s  own  hand. 
The  great  seal  alone  would  not,  therefore,  make  the  commis- 
sion legal ; and  the  Act  for  the  Duke  of  Norfolk’s  attainder 
had  been  declared  void  by  Parliament,1  because  the  commis- 
sion for  giving  the  royal  assent  to  it  had  wanted  the  king’s 
sign-manual,  his  name  having  been  affixed  by  means  of  a 
stamp.  The  course  proposed  by  ministers,  however,  was  ap- 
proved by  both  Houses. 

According  to  invariable  custom,  the  names  of  all  the  royal 
dukes,  having  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords,  had  The  royal 
been  inserted  in  the  proposed  commission ; but  the  toUbeSinethene 
Duke  of  York  desired  that  his  own  name  and  that C0mmissi0n- 
of  the  Prince  of  Wales  might  be  omitted,  as  he  “ deemed  the 
measure  proposed,  as  well  as  every  other  which  had  been 
taken  respecting  the  same  subject,  as  unconstitutional  and 
illegal.”  The  Duke  of  Cumberland  also  desired  the  omission 
of  his  name,  and  that  of  the  Duke  of  Gloucester. 

On  the  3d  February,  Parliament  was  at  length  opened  by 
commission.2  Earl  Bathurst,  one  of  the  commis-  0pening  of 
sioners  who  sat  as  speaker,  in  the  absence  of  the  Parliament. 
Chancellor,  stated  that  the  illness  of  his  Majesty  had  made  it 
necessary  that  a commission  in  his  name  should  pass  the  Great 
Seal ; and  when  the  commission  had  been  read,  he  delivered 
a speech  to  both  Houses,  in  pursuance  of  the  authority  given 
by  that  commission,  declaring  the  causes  of  summons,  and 
calling  attention  to  the  necessity  of  making  provision  for  the 
care  of  the  king’s  person,  and  the  administration  of  the  royal 
authority. 

Meanwhile,  it  became  necessary  that  the  usual  commission 
should  issue  for  holding  the  assizes.  Although  the 

. _ ■ _ . _ . _ . Commission 

sign-manual  could  not  then  be  obtained,  the  ur-  for  bolding 
gency  of  the  occasion  was  so  great  that  Lord  Thur-  e assizes' 
low,  the  chancellor,  affixed  the  great  seal  to  a commission  for 

1 1 Mary,  Sess.  2,  c.  13  (Private). 

2 See  Form  of  Commission,  Lords  Joum.,  xxxviii.  344. 


158 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


that  purpose,  by  virtue  of  which  the  judges  went  their  cir- 
cuits.1 

After  all  these  delays,  Mr.  Pitt  now  brought  the  Regency 
Regency  Bill  Bill  into  the  House  of  Commons.2  The  provisions 
brought  m.  wRich  attracted  most  observation  were  the  nomi- 
nation of  the  queen's  council,  the  restriction  upon  the  crea- 
tion of  peers,  the  power  of  the  privy  council  to  pronounce  his 
Majesty’s  restoration  to  health  and  capacity,  and  a clause  by 
which  the  regent’s  authority  would  cease  if  he  married  a 
Roman  Catholic.  But,  as  the  measure  was  not  destined  to 
pass,  the  lengthened  debates  to  which  it  gave  rise,  need  not 
be  pursued  any  further.  The  bill  had  been  sent  to  the  Lords, 
— its  clauses  were  being  discussed  in  committee,  — and  poli- 
ticians, in  expectation  of  its  early  passing,  were  busily  filling  up 
the  places  in  the  prince  regent’s  first  administration,  — when 
on  the  19  th  February,  the  Lord  Chancellor  announced  that 
his  Majesty  was  convalescent ; and  further  proceedings  were 
The  king’s  arrested-  The  king’s  recovery  was  now  rapid  : on 
sudden  recov-  the  25  th,  he  was  pronounced  free  from  complaint, 
and  on  the  27th,  further  bulletins  were  discontinued 
by  his  Majesty’s  own  command.  On  the  10th  March  another 
commission  was  issued,  authorizing  “ the  commissioners,  who 
were  appointed  by  former  letter s-patent  to  hold  this  Parlia- 
ment, to  open  and  declare  certain  further  causes  for  holding 
the  same,”3  thus  recognizing  the  validity  of  the  previous 
commission,  to  which  the  great  seal  had  been  affixed  in  his 
name.4  He  thanked  Parliament  for  its  attachment  to  his 
person,  and  its  concern  for  the  honor  of  the  Crown,  and  the 
security  of  his  dominions.  Loyal  addresses  were  agreed  to 

1 Speech  of  Lord  Liverpool,  Jan.  5th,  1811.  Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser., 
xviii.  789. 

2 5th  February,  1789;  see  a copy  of  the  Regency  Bill  as  passed  by  the 
Commons,  Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  1258. 

8 Commons’  Journ.,  xliv.  159. 

4 While  the  proceedings  upon  the  Regency  Bill  were  pending,  several 
other  bills  were  introduced  into  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  which  received 
the  royal  assent  after  his  Majesty’s  recovery. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


159 


by  both  Houses,  nem,  con .,  as  well  as  a message  of  congratu- 
lation to  the  queen. 

The  23d  April  was  appointed  as  a day  of  public  thanks- 
giving, when  the  king  and  royal  family,  attended  The  king  goes 
by  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  the  great  officers  of t0  st'  PauPs- 
state,  and  foreign  ambassadors,  went  in  procession  to  St. 
Paul’s.  It  was  a solemn  and  affecting  spectacle  : a national 
demonstration  of  loyalty,  and  pious  gratitude. 

Thus  ended  a most  painful  episode  in  the  history  of  this 
reign.  Had  no  delays  been  interposed  in  the  prog-  fortunate  de- 
ress  of  the  Regency  Bill,  the  king,  on  his  recov-  Regency S 
ery,  would  have  found  himself  stripped  of  his  royal  BilL 
authority.  He  was  spared  this  sorrow,  partly  by  the  numer- 
ous preliminaries  which  the  ministers  had  deemed  necessary  ; 
and  partly  by  the  conduct  of  the  Opposition,  who  though 
most  interested  in  the  speedy  passing  of  the  bill,  had  contrib- 
uted to  its  protracted  consideration.  By  asserting  the  prince’s 
right,  they  had  provoked  the  ministers  to  maintain  the  au- 
thority of  Parliament,  as  a preliminary  to  legislation.  Twice 
they  had  caused  the  physicians  to  be  examined ; and  they 
discussed  the  bill  in  all  its  stages,  in  full  confidence  that  his 
Majesty’s  recovery  was  hopeless. 

Many  of  the  preliminaries,  indeed,  would  seem  to  have 
been  superfluous : but  the  unprecedented  circum- 

•i  ••  it  ii  Comments 

stances  with  which  ministers  had  to  deal,  — the  upon  these 
entire  want  of  confidence  between  them  and  the  proceedmss- 
Prince  of  Wales, — the  uncertainty  of  the  king’s  recovery, 
— the  conduct  of  the  Opposition,  and  their  relations  to  the 
Prince,  — together  with  several  constitutional  considerations 
of  the  utmost  difficulty,  contributed  to  the  embarrassment  of 
their  position. 

If  it  was  necessary  to  authorize  the  opening  of  Parliament 
by  a commission  under  the  great  seal,  this  course  ought  to 
have  been  at  first  adopted ; for  the  law  of  Parliament  does 
not  recognize  the  distinction  then  raised,  between  legislative 
and  any  other  proceedings.  No  business  whatever  can  be 


160 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


commenced  until  the  causes  of  summons  have  been  declared 
by  the  Crown.1  The  king  having  been  unable  to  exercise 
this  function,  Parliament  had  proceeded  with  its  delibera- 
tions for  upwards  of  two  months,  without  the  accustomed 
speech  from  the  throne.  And  if  any  doubt  existed  as  to  the 
validity  of  these  proceedings,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
they  could  be  removed  by  the  commission.  As  the  king’s 
authority  could  not  in  fact  be  exercised,  and  as  the  great 
seal,  intended  to  represent  it,  was  affixed  by  direction  of  the 
two  Houses,  why  was  the  fiction  needed  ? The  only  real 
authority  was  that  of  Parliament,  which  might  have  been 
boldly  and  openly  exercised,  during  the  incapacity  of  the 
king. 

The  simplest  and  most  direct  course  would,  undoubtedly, 
have  been  for  both  Houses  to  agree  upon  an  address  to  the 
Prince  of  Wales,  praying  him  to  exercise  the  royal  authority, 
subject  to  conditions  stated  in  the  address  itself ; and  on  his 
acceptance  of  the  trust,  to  proceed  to  give  legal  effect  to 
these  conditions  by  a bill,  — to  which  the  royal  assent  would 
be  signified  by  the  regent,  on  behalf  of  the  Crown.  Either 
in  earlier  or  in  later  times,  such  a course  would  probably 
have  been  followed ; but  at  that  period,  above  all  others,  law- 
yers delighted  in  fiction,  and  Westminster  Hall  was  peopled 
with  legal  “ phantoms  ” of  their  creation.2 

In  proposing  to  proceed  by  address,  the  Opposition  relied 
upon  the  precedent  of  the  Revolution  of  1688. 

Precedent  of  A 1 . _ .. 

the  Revoiu-  On  the  other  side  it  was  contended,  and  particu- 
tion  larly  by  Sir  John  Scott,  the  Solicitor- General, — 


1 Even  the  election  of  a speaker  and  the  swearing  of  members  in  a new 
Parliament,  are  not  commenced  until  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown  has  been 
signified. 

2 See  Chapter  on  Law  and  Administration  of  Justice.  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell says,  “ All  reasonable  restrictions  might  have  been  imposed  by  Act  of 
Parliament,  with  the  royal  assent  given  by  the  regent,  acting  on  behalf  of 
the  Crown.”  — Mem.  of  Fox , ii.  265.  He  ridicules  the  “ absurd  phantom 
of  a royal  assent  given  by  the  Houses  of  Parliament  to  their  own  act,  by  a 
fiction  of  their  own  creation.” 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


161 


by  whose  advice  the  Government  were  mainly  guided, — 
that  after  the  throne  had  been  declared  vacant,  Parliament 
solicited  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  assume  the  royal  powers ; 
but  here  the  rights  of  the  lawful  sovereign  could  not  be 
passed  by,  and  superseded.1  His  name  must  be  used  in  all 
the  proceedings : his  great  seal  affixed  by  the  chancellor  of 
his  appointment,  to  every  commission ; and  his  authority  rec- 
ognized and  represented,  though  his  personal  directions  and 
capacity  were  wanting.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  what- 
ever empty  forms  were  observed,  the  royal  authority  was,  of 
necessity,  superseded.  As  the  throne  was  not  vacant,  no 
stranger  was  sought  to  fill  it ; but  all  parties  concurred  in 
calling  upon  the  heir  apparent  to  exercise  his  father’s  royal 
authority.  The  two  occasions  differed  in  regard  to  the  per- 
sons whom  Parliament,  in  times  of  nearly  equal  emergency, 
proposed  to  invest  with  the  supreme  power : but  why  a sim- 
ple and  direct  course  of  proceeding  was  not  as  appropriate 
in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  we  need  the  subtilty  and 
formalism  of  the  old  school  of  lawyers  to  perceive. 

As  regards  the  conduct  of  political  parties,  it  can  hardly 
be  questioned  that,  on  the  one  hand,  Mr.  Fox 

, ; . . . . , / , „ Conduct  of 

and  his  party  incautiously  took  up  an  indefensible  political  par- 
position  ; while,  on  the  other,  Mr.  Pitt  was  unduly 
tenacious  in  asserting  the  authority  of  Parliament,  — which 
the  prince  had  not  authorized  any  one  to  question,  — and 
which  his  brother,  the  Duke  of  York,  had  admitted.  Yet 
the  conduct  of  both  is  easily  explained  by  the  circumstances 
of  their  respective  parties.  The  Prince  had  identified  him- 
self with  Mr.  Fox  and  the  Whigs  ; and  it  was  well  known 
to  Mr.  Pitt,  and  offensively  announced  by  his  opponents,  that 
the  passing  of  the  Regency  Act  would  be  the  signal  for  his 
own  dismissal.  To  assert  the  prince’s  rights,  and  resist  all 
restrictions  upon  his  authority,  was  the  natural  course  for  his 
friends  to  adopt ; while  to  maintain  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Crown,  — to  respect  the  feelings  and  dignity  of  the  queen, 

1 Pari.  Hist.,  xxvii.  825;  Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  192. 

VOL.  i.  11 


162 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


and  at  the  same  time  to  vindicate  the  paramount  authority 
of  Parliament,  — was  the  becoming  policy  of  the  king’s  min- 
ister. Mr.  Pitt’s  view,  being  favorable  to  popular  rights,  was 
supported  by  the  people : Mr.  Fox,  on  the  other  hand,  com- 
mitted himself  to  the  assertion  of  prerogative,  and  inveighed 
against  the  discretionary  powers  of  Parliament.  Well  might 
Mr.  Pitt  exultingly  exclaim,  “ I’ll  unwhig  the  gentleman  for 
the  rest  of  his  life.”  1 The  proceedings  on  the  regency  con- 
firmed the  confidence  of  the  king  in  Mr.  Pitt,  and  his  dis- 
trust of  Mr.  Fox  and  his  adherents ; and  the  popular  min- 
ister had  a long  career  of  power  before  him. 

While  these  proceedings  were  pending,  the  Parliament  of 
Proceedings  Ireland,  adopting  the  views  of  Mr.  Fox,  presented 
mentof 1 ire-  an  address  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  praying  him  to 
land-  take  upon  himself  “ the  government  of  this  realm, 

during  the  continuance  of  his  Majesty’s  present  indisposition, 
and  no  longer,  and  under  the  style  and  title  of  Prince  Re- 
gent of  Ireland , in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  his  Majesty, 
to  exercise  and  administer,  according  to  the  laws  and  con- 
stitution of  this  kingdom,  all  regal  powers,  jurisdictions,  and 
prerogatives  to  the  Crown  and  Government  thereof  belong- 
ing.” The  lord-lieutenant,  the  Marquis  of  Buckingham, 
having  refused  to  transmit  this  address,  the  Parliament 
caused  it  to  be  conveyed  directly  to  his  Royal  Highness,  by 
some  of  their  own  members.2 

To  this  address  the  prince  returned  an  answer,  in  which, 
after  thanking  the  Parliament  of  Ireland  for  their  loyalty 
and  affection,  he  stated  that  he  trusted  the  king  would  soon 
be  able  to  resume  the  personal  exercise  of  the  royal  author- 


1 Adolphus’s  Hist.,  iv.  326,  n. ; Moore’s  Life  of  Sheridan,  ii.  38.  Lord 
Grey,  speaking  in  1810  of  the  precedent  of  1788,  was  of  opinion,  “ now  that 
the  differences  which  then  subsisted  are  no  more,  that  all  the  preliminary 
steps  taken  . . . were  wise  and  prudent,  and  conformable  to  the  dictates 
of  a sound  and  well-exercised  discretion.”  — Hansard's  Debates,  1st  Ser., 
xviii.  19. 

2 Debates  of  the  Parliament  of  Ireland;  Pari.  Register  of  Ireland,  ix. 
119;  Lords  Journ.  (Ireland),  vol.  vi.  240;  Com.  Journ.  (Ireland),  vol. 
xiii.  7. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


163 


it y,  which  would  render  unnecessary  any  further  answer, 
except  a repetition  of  his  thanks.1 

Soon  after  his  recovery,  the  king  said  to  Lord  Thurlow, 
“what  has  happened  may  happen  again:  for  wiseforegight 
God’s  sake  make  some  permanent  and  immediate  of  the  klngt 
provision  for  such  a regency  as  may  prevent  the  country 
from  being  involved  in  disputes  and  difficulties  similar  to 
those  just  over.”  Lord  Thurlow  and  Mr.  Pitt  agreed  as  to 
the  expediency  of  such  a measure ; but  differed  as  to  the 
mode  in  which  it  should  be  framed.  The  former  was  soon 
afterwards  out  of  office,  and  the  latter  thought  no  more 
about  the  matter.2  It  is  indeed  singular  that  the  king’s 
wise  foresight  should  have  been  entirely  neglected ; and 
that  on  three  subsequent  occasions,  embarrassments  arising 
from  the  same  cause,  should  have  been  experienced. 

In  February,  1801,  the  king  was  again  seized  with  an 
illness  of  the  same  melancholy  character,  as  that  The  king?s  m_ 
by  which  he  had  previously  been  afflicted.3  if  ness  in  1801. 
not  caused,  it  was  at  least  aggravated  by  the  excitement 
of  an  impending  change  of  ministry,4  in  consequence  of  his 
difference  of  opinion  with  Mr.  Pitt  on  the  Roman  Catholic 
question.5 

This  illness,  though  not  involving  constitutional  difficul- 
ties so  important  as  those  of  1788,  occurred  at  a Ministerial 
moment  of  no  small  political  embarrassment.  Mr.  chanses* 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  183. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary,  iv.  23. 

3 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary,  Feb.  17th,  1801 : “ King  got  a bad  cold ; 
takes  James’s  powder;  God  forbid  he  should  be  ill!  ” Feb.  19th:  44  This 
the  first  symptom  of  the  king’s  serious  illness.”  Malm.  Cor.,  iv.  11,  13. 
Feb.  22d:  44  King  much  worse;  Dr.  J.  Willis  attended  him  all  last  night, 
and  says  he  was  in  the  height  of  a frenzy-fever,  as  bad  as  the  worst 
period  when  he  saw  him  in  1788.”  Ibid .,  16:  Evid.  of  Dr.  Reynolds,  1810. 
Hans.  Deb .,  xviii.  134. 

4 He  had  been  chilled  by  remaining  very  long  in  church  on  the  Fast  Day, 
Friday,  Feb.  13,  and  on  his  return  home  was  seized  with  cramps.  — Lord 
M almes.  Diary , iv.  28. 

5 See  supra,  p.  85  et  seq .,  and  Chapter  XII.,  on  Civil  and  Religious  Lib- 
erty. 


164 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


Pitt  had  tendered  his  resignation  ; and  was  holding  office 
only  until  the  appointment  of  his  successor.  Mr.  Speaker 
Addington  had  received  the  king’s  commands  to  form  an 
administration,  and  had,  consequently,  resigned  the  chair  of 
the  House  of  Commons.  The  arrangements  for  a new  min- 
istry were  in  progress,  when  they  were  interrupted  by  the 
king’s  indisposition.  But,  believing  it  to  be  nothing  more 
than  a severe  cold,  Mr.  Addington  did  not  think  fit  to 
wait  for  his  formal  appointment ; and  vacated  his  seat,  on 
the  19th  February,  by  accepting  the  Chiltern  Hundreds, 
in  order  to  expedite  his  return  to  his  place  in  Parliament. 
In  the  mean  time  Mr.  Pitt,  who  had  resigned  office,  not 
only  continued  to  discharge  the  customary  official  duties  of 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,1  but  on  the  18  th  February, 
brought  forward  the  annual  budget,2  which  included  a loan 
of  25,500,000 /.,  and  new  taxes  to  the  amount  of  1,750,000Z.3 

Mr.  Addington  had  fully  expected  that  his  formal  ap- 
pointment as  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  would  have  been  completed  before  his 
reelection ; but  this  was  prevented  by  the  king’s  illness, 
and  as  his  election  could  not  legally  be  postponed,  he  took 
his  seat  again  on  the  27th,  not  as  a minister  of  the  Crown, 
but  as  a private  member. 

On  the  22d  the  king’s  condition  was  as  bad  as  at  the 
worst  period  of  his  attack  in  1788.4  Towards  the  evening 
of  the  following  day  he  came  to  himself,  and  indicated  the 
causes  of  disturbance  which  were  pressing  on  his  mind,  by 
exclaiming : “ I am  better  now,  but  I will  remain  true  to  the 
Church ; ” 5 and  afterwards,  “ the  king’s  mind,  whenever  he 
came  to  himself,  reverted  at  once  to  the  cause  of  his  dis- 
quietude.” 6 At  the  beginning  of  March  his  fever  increased 

1 Lord  Malmesb.  Diary,  xiv.  28. 

2 Pari.  Hist.,  xxxv.  972. 

3 It  seems  that  he  spoke  from  the  third  bench,  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
chair.  — Mr.  Abbot's  Diary ; Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth , i.  345,  n. 

4 Lord  Malmesb.  Diary,  iv.  16. 

6 Ibid..  20. 


6 Ibid..  28. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


165 


again,  and  for  a time  his  life  was  despaired  of : 1 but  about 
the  5 th,  a favorable  turn  took  place ; and  though  not  allowed 
to  engage  in  any  business,  he  was  from  this  time  gradually 
recovering.2  On  the  10th,  he  wrote  a letter  approving  of  a 
minute  of  the  cabinet;  and  on  the  11th  he  saw  Mr.  Adding- 
ton and  the  Chancellor  when  he  was  pronounced,  — some- 
what prematurely,  — to  be  quite  well.3 

On  the  24th  February,  the  bill  for  repealing  the  absurd 
Brown  Bread  Act  of  the  previous  session  was  awaiting  the 
royal  assent,  and  it  was  thought  very  desirable  that  no  de- 
lay should  occur.  Mr.  Addington  declined  presenting  the 
commission  for  his  Majesty’s  signature ; but  the  Chancellor, 
Lord  Loughborough,  waited  upon  the  king,  who  signed  the 
commission,  saying  it  was  a very  good  bill.4 

Meanwhile,  who  was  minister  — Mr.  Pitt  or  Mr.  Adding- 
ton ? or  neither  ? Both  were  in  communication  with  the 
Prince  of  Wales  on  the  probable  necessity  of  a regency : 
both  were  in  official  communication  with  the  king  himself.5 
The  embarrassment  of  such  a position  was  relieved  by  the 
forbearance  of  all  parties  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament ; and 
at  length,  on  the  14th  March,  the  king  was  sufficiently  re- 
covered to  receive  the  seals  from  Mr.  Pitt,  and  to  place 
them  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Addington.  This  acceptance  of 
office,  however,  again  vacated  his  seat,  which  he  was  unable 
to  resume  as  a minister  of  the  Crown,  until  the  23d  March. 
The  king  was  still  for  some  time  obliged  to  abstain  from  un- 
necessary exertion.  On  the  15th  April,  he  transferred  the 
great  seal  from  Lord  Loughborough  to  Lord  Eldon  ; but 
though  several  other  things  were  required  to  be  done,  the 
ministers  were  unanimous  that  he  should  only  perform  this 
single  act  on  that  day.6 

1 Lord  Malmesb.  Diary,  iv.  27. 

2 Ibid.,  30-33,  et  seq. 

3 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Cor.,  iv.  44;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  i.  350. 

4 Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  308;  Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary,  iv.  17,  18. 

6 Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  348,  350 ; Malmesb.  Diary,  iv.  25,  &c. 

6 Life  of  Lord  Sidmouth,  i.  401. 


166 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


But  even  after  the  king  had  transacted  business,  and  his 
recovery  had  been  formally  announced,  his  health  continued 
to  cause  great  anxiety  to  his  family  and  ministers.  Appre- 
hensions were  entertained  lest  “ his  intellectual  faculties 
should  be  impaired  so  much  as  never  to  recover  their  for- 
mer tone.”  1 Writing  in  August,  1801,  Mr.  T.  Grenville 
says  : “ The  king  has  seen  the  chancellor  for  two  hours,  and 
the  ministers  give  out  that  the  king  will  hold  a council  in  a 
day  or  two  at  farthest.”  2 

On  this  occasion  his  Majesty’s  illness,  however  alarming, 
passed  over  without  any  serious  hindrance  to  public  busi- 
ness. It  occurred  while  Parliament  was  sitting,  and  at  a time 
when  the  personal  exercise  of  the  royal  authority  was  not 
urgently  required,  except  for  the  purposes  already  noticed. 
The  constitutional  questions,  therefore,  which  had  been  so 
fully  argued  in  1788,  — though  gravely  considered  by  those 
more  immediately  concerned,  — did  not  come  again  under 
discussion.3  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  king’s  speedy  re- 
covery affords  some  justification  of  the  dilatory  proceedings 
adopted  regarding  the  regency,  in  1788.  Too  prompt  a 
measure  for  supplying  the  defect  of  the  royal  authority, 
would,  on  the  king’s  recovery,  have  been  alike  embarrass- 
ing to  his  Majesty  himself,  the  ministers,  and  Parliament. 

In  1804  the  king  was  once  more  stricken  with  the  same 
The  king’s  m-  grievous  malady.  In  January  he  was  attacked 
ness  m 1804.  w*tpL  rheumatic  gout,  and  about  the  12th  Feb- 
ruary, his  mind  became  affected.4  He  gradually  recovered 

1 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary,  20th  March;  Correspondence,  iv.  51. 

2 Court  and  Cabinets  of  Geo.  III.,  iii.  167. 

3 It  was  suggested  that  both  parties,  who  had  opposed  each  other  so  vio- 
lently in  1788  upon  the  question  of  a regency,  should  now  make  mutual 
concessions,  and,  if  possible,  avoid  the  discussion  of  their  conflicting  opin- 
ions. In  this  view,  it  seems,  Lord  Spencer,  the  Duke  of  Portland,  Mr.  T. 
Grenville,  and  Mr.  T.  Pelham  concurred;  but  Mr.  Pitt  appears  not  to  have 
entirely  acquiesced  in  it.  — Lord  Malmes.  Cor.,  iv.  19. 

4 Lord  Malmesbury  says,  although  “ there  was  a council  held  about  the 
24th  January  at  the  queen’s  house,  yet  before  the  end  of  that  month  it  was 
no  longer  to  be  concealed  that  the  king  had  a return  of  his  old  illness.”  — 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


167 


towards  the  end  of  the  month ; 1 yet  his  malady  continued, 
with  more  or  less  severity,  so  as  to  make  it  requisite  to 
spare  him  all  unnecessary  exertion  of  mind,  till  the  23d 
April,  when  he  presided  at  a council.  He  remained  under 
medical  care  and  control  until  the  10th  June.2  For  a time 
his  life  was  in  danger;  but  his  mind  was  never  so  com- 
pletely alienated  as  it  had  been  in  1788  and  1801. 3 

On  the  26th  February  the  archbishop  offered  a thanks- 
giving for  the  happy  prospect  of  his  Majesty’s  speedy  re- 
covery ; and  on  the  same  day,  the  physicians  issued  a bul- 
letin, announcing  that  any  rapid  amendment  was  not  to  be 
expected.4 

Meanwhile,  the  ordinary  business  of  the  session  was  pro- 
ceeded with.  On  the  27th  February,  the  king’s  illness  was 
adverted  to  in  the  House  of  Commons : but  ministers  were 
of  opinion  that  a formal  communication  to  the  House  upon 
the  subject  was  not  required,  and  could  secure  no  good  ob- 
ject. Mr.  Addington  stated  that  there  was  not,  at  that 
time,  any  necessary  suspension  of  such  royal  functions  as  it 
might  be  needful  for  his  Majesty  to  discharge.5  That  very 
day  the  cabinet  had  examined  the  king’s  physicians,  who 
were  unanimously  of  opinion  that  his  Majesty  was  perfectly 
competent  to  understand  the  effect  of  an  instrument  to  which 
his  sign-manual  was  required ; but  that  it  would  be  impru- 
dent for  him  to  engage  in  long  argument,  or  fatiguing 
discussion.6  The  delicate  and  responsible  position  of  the 
ministers,  however,  was  admitted.  The  king  having  already 

Cor . iv.  292.  But  it  appears  from  Lord  Sidmouth’s  life,  that  the  king’s  rea- 
son was  not  affected  until  about  the  12th  of  February.  — Lord  Sidmouth's 
Life , ii.  246,  et  seq. 

1 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  249,  et  seq. 

2 Evidence  of  Dr.  Heberden,  1810.  He  had  otherwise  been  indisposed 
for  a month  previously,  with  symptoms  of  his  old  malady.  Lord  Malmes- 
bury’s Cor.,  iv.  292;  Fox’s  Mem.,  iv.  24,  85,  37. 

3 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary,  iv.  293. 

4 Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  250. 

5 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  i.  307,  526,  530. 

6 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  421. 


168 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


been  ill  for  a fortnight,  — how  much  longer  might  they  ex- 
ercise all  the  executive  powers  of  the  state,  without  calling 
in  aid  the  authority  of  Parliament  ? At  present  they  ac- 
cepted the  responsibility  of  declaring  that  the  interference 
of  Parliament  was  unnecessary.  On  the  1st  March,  similar 
assurances  were  given  by  Lord  Hawkesbury  in  the  House 
of  Lords:  the  Lord  Chancellor  also  declared  that,  at  that 
moment,  there  was  no  suspension  of  the  royal  functions. 

On  the  2d  March,  the  matter  was  again  brought  forward 
by  Mr.  Grey,  but  elicited  no  further  explanation.1  On  the 
5th,  the  Lord  Chancellor  stated  that  he  had  had  interviews, 
on  that  and  the  previous  day,  with  the  king,  who  gave  his 
consent  to  the  Duke  of  York’s  Estate  Bill,  so  far  as  his  own 
interest  was  concerned  ; and  on  the  same  day  the  physicians 
were  of  opinion  “ that  his  Majesty  was  fully  competent  to 
transact  business  with  his  Parliament,  by  commission  and 
message.” 2 On  the  9th,  Mr.  Grey  adverted  to  the  fact  that 
fifteen  bills  had  just  received  the  royal  assent,  — a circum- 
stance which  he  regarded  with  “uneasiness  and  apprehen- 
sion.”3 Among  these  bills  were  the  annual  Mutiny  Acts, 
the  passing  of  which,  in  the  midst  of  war,  could  not  have 
been  safely  postponed.  On  this  day  also,  the  Lord  Chancel- 
lor assured  the  House  of  Lords,  “ that  not  satisfied  with  the 
reports  and  assurances  of  the  medical  attendants,  he  had 
thought  it  right  to  obtain  a personal  interview  with  the 
sovereign,  and  that  at  that  interview  due  discussion  had 
taken  place  as  to  the  bills  offered  for  the  royal  assent,  which 
had  thereupon  been  fully  expressed.”  In  reference  to  this 
interview,  Lord  Eldon  states  in  his  Anecdote  Book,  that  the 
king  had  noticed  that  he  was  stated  in  the  commission  to 
have  fully  considered  the  bills  to  which  his  assent  was  to  be 
signified  ; and  that  to  be  correct,  he  ought  to  have  the  bills 
to  peruse  and  consider.  His  Majesty  added,  that  in  the 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  i.  663. 

2 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  422. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  i.  823. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


169 


early  part  of  his  reign  he  had  always  had  the  bills  them- 
selves, until  Lord  Thurlow  ceased  to  bring  them,  saying: 
“It  was  nonsense  his  giving  himself  the  trouble  to  read 
them.”  If  there  was  somewhat  of  the  perverse  acuteness  of 
insanity  in  these  remarks,  there  was  yet  sufficient  self-posses- 
sion in  the  royal  mind,  to  satisfy  Lord  Eldon  that  he  was 
justified  in  taking  the  sign-manual.1  On  the  23d  March, 
seventeen  other  bills  received  the  royal  assent ; and  on  the 
26th  March,  a message  from  the  king,  signed  by  himself, 
was  brought  to  the  House  of  Commons  by  Mr.  Addington : 
but  no  observation  was  made  concerning  his  Majesty’s  health. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  his  Majesty,  though  for  some 
months  afterwards  strange  and  disordered  in  his  family  cir- 
cle, was  not  incapacitated  from  attending  to  necessary  busi- 
ness with  his  ministers.2  The  Opposition,  however,  and 
particularly  the  Carlton  House  party,  were  disposed  to  make 
the  most  of  the  king’s  illness,  and  were  confidently  expect- 
ing a regency.3 

Before  his  Majesty  had  been  restored  to  his  accustomed 
health,  the  fall  of  his  favorite  minister,  Mr.  Ad-  change  of 
dington,  was  impending ; and  the  king  was  en-  “retheking’s 
gaged  in  negotiations  with  the  chancellor  and  Mr.  recovery- 
Pitt,  for  the  formation  of  another  administration.4  To  con- 
fer with  his  Majesty  upon  questions  so  formal  as  his  assent 
to  the  Mutiny  Bills,  had  been  a matter  of  delicacy : but  to 
discuss  with  him  so  important  a measure  as  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  a ministry,  in  a time  of  war  and  public  danger,  was 
indeed  embarrassing.  Mr.  Pitt’s  correspondence  discloses 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  i.  162;  Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  419. 

2 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  i.  422;  Lord  Malmesbury’s  Cor.,  iv.  317,  325, 
327,  344;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  ii.  248,  et  seq. 

3 Mr,  Pitt,  on  being  told  that  the  Prince  of  Wales  had  asserted  that  the 
king’s  illness  must  last  for  several  months,  said:  “ Thy  wish  was  father, 
Harry,  to  that  thought.”  — Lord  Malmesbury's  Cor.,  iv.  298,  313,  315. 

4 The  chancellor’s  conduct,  on  this  occasion,  in  negotiating  for  Mr.  Pitt’s 
return  to  office,  unknown  to  Mr.  Addington  and  his  colleagues,  has  exposed 
him  to  the  severest  animadversions.  — Lord  Campbell's  Lives  of  the  Chan- 
cellors, vii.  166;  Law  Review,  Nos.  ii.  and  xi. 


170 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


his  misgivings  as  to  the  state  of  the  king’s  mind.1  But  on 
the  7th  May,  he  was  with  him  for  three  hours,  and  was 
amazed  at  the  cool  and  collected  manner  in  which  his 
Majesty  had  carried  on  the  conversation.2  It  was  probably 
from  this  interview  that  Lord  Eldon  relates  Mr.  Pitt  to  have 
come  out “ not  only  satisfied,  but  much  surprised  with  the 
king’s  ability.  He  said  he  had  never  so  baffled  him  in  any 
conversation  he  had  had  with  him  in  his  life.”3  Yet,  on 
the  9th  May,  after  another  interview,  Mr.  Pitt  wrote  to  the 
chancellor : “ I do  not  think  there  was  anything  positively 
wrong ; but  there  was  a hurry  of  spirits  and  an  excessive 
love  of  talking.”  . . . . “ There  is  certainly  nothing  in  what 
I have  observed  that  would,  in  the  smallest  degree,  justify 
postponing  any  other  steps  that  are  in  progress  towards  ar- 
rangement.” Nor  did  these  continued  misgivings  prevent 
the  ministerial  arrangements  from  being  completed,  some 
time  before  the  king  was  entirely  relieved  from  the  care  of 
his  medical  attendants. 

The  conduct  of  the  Government,  and  especially  of  the 
imputations  Lord  Chancellor,  in  allowing  the  royal  functions 
diic^of  min-"  to  ^e  exercised  during  this  period,  were  several 
isters.  years  afterwards  severely  impugned.  In  1811, 
Lord  Grey  had  not  forgotten  the  suspicions  he  had  expressed 
in  1804  ; and  in  examining  the  king’s  physicians,  he  elicited, 
especially  from  Dr.  Heberden,  several  circumstances,  pre- 
viously unknown,  relative  to  the  king’s  former  illnesses.  On 
the  28th  January,  fortified  by  this  evidence,  he  arraigned  the 
Lord  Chancellor  of  conduct  “ little  short  of  high-treason,”  — 
of  u treason  against  the  constitution  and  the  country.”  He 
particularly  relied  upon  the  fact,  that  on  the  9 th  March, 
1804,  the  Chancellor  had  affixed  the  great  seal  to  a commis- 
sion for  giving  the  royal  assent  to  fifteen  bills  ; and  accused 

1 Letters  to  Lord  Eldon,  April  22,  May  8 ; Lord  Campbell’s  Lives,  vii. 
169,  173. 

2 Lord  Malmesb.  Cor.,  iv.  306. 

8 Twiss’s  Life,  i.  449. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


171 


the  ministers  of  that  day  of  “ having  culpably  made  use  of 
the  king’s  name  without  the  king’s  sanction,  and  criminally 
exercised  the  royal  functions,  when  the  sovereign  was  under 
a moral  incapacity  to  authorize  such  a proceeding.”  1 Lord 
Sidmouth  and  Lord  Eldon,  the  ministers  whose  conduct  was 
mainly  impugned,  defended  themselves  from  these  imputa- 
tions, and  expressed  their  astonishment  at  Dr.  Heberden’s 
evidence,  which,  they  said,  was  at  variance  with  the  opinions 
of  all  the  physicians,  — including  Dr.  Heberden  himself,  — 
expressed  in  1804,  while  in  attendance  upon  the  king.  They 
stated  that  his  new  version  of  his  Majesty’s  former  illness 
had  surprised  the  queen,  not  less  than  the  ministers.  And 
it  is  quite  clear,  from  other  evidence,  that  Dr.  Heberden’s 
account  of  the  duration  and  continuous  character  of  the 
king’s  malady,  was  inaccurate.2  Lord  Eldon,  oddly  enough, 
affirmed,  that  on  the  9 th  of  March,  the  king  understood  the 
duty  which  the  Chancellor  had  to  perform,  better  than  he 
did  himself.  This  he  believed  he  could  prove.  A motion 
was  made  by  Lord  King,  for  omitting  Lord  Eldon’s  name 
from  the  Queen’s  Council  of  Kegency ; and  its  rejection  was 
the  cause  of  a protest,  signed  by  nine  peers,  — including 
Lords  Grey,  Holland,  Lauderdale,  and  Erskine,  — in  which 
they  affirmed  his  unfitness  for  that  office,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  improperly  used  the  king’s  name  and  authority,  dur- 
ing his  incapacity  in  1804.3  In  the  House  of  Commons  Mr. 
Whitbread  made  a similar  charge  against  his  lordship ; and 
the  Lord  Chancellor  complained,  — not  without  reason,  — : 
that  he  had  been  hardly  dealt  with  by  his  enemies,  and  feebly 
defended  by  his  friends.4 

In  1804  the  propriety  of  passing  a regency  bill,  to  pro- 
vide for  any  future  illness  of  the  king,  was  once  more  the 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  1054. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diaries  and  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life;  and  supra,  p. 
168. 

3 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  1031-1087. 

4 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xix.  87;  Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life,  iii.  37; 
Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  151-161. 


172 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


subject  of  grave  consideration  among  the  statesmen  of  the 
period;1  but,  — as  in  1789,  so  now  again,  — no 

Necessity  of  a r ’ „ n 

Regency  Act  sooner  did  the  king  recover,  than  all  further  care 

C3iIlTdiSS6(l<  . i i . • pj  t i 

appears  to  have  been  cast  aside,  bix  years  later 
this  want  of  foresight  again  led  to  serious  embarrassment. 

The  king’s  last  mental  disorder  commenced  in  the  autumn 
King’s  illness  °f  1810.  His  kingly  career  was  to  close  forever, 
in  1810.  Bereft  of  reason  and  nearly  blind,  the  poor  old 
king,  — who  had  ruled  for  fifty  years  with  so  high  a hand, 
and  so  strong  a will,  — was  now  tended  by  physicians,  and 
controlled  by  keepers.  His  constitutional  infirmity,  aggra- 
vated by  political  anxieties  and  domestic  distresses,  had  over- 
come him  ; and  he  was  too  far  advanced  in  years,  to  rally 
again.  It  was  a mournful  spectacle.  Like  King  Lear,  he 
was 

u A poor  old  man, 

As  full  of  grief  as  age:  wretched  in  both.” 

But  as  physicians  will  dispute  at  the  bedside  of  the  dying 
patient,  — so  the  hopes  and  fears  of  rival  parties,  and  the 
rude  collisions  of  political  strife,  were  aroused  into  activity 
by  the  sufferings  of  the  king.  The  contentions  of  1788 
were  revived,  though  the  leaders  of  that  age  had  passed 
away. 

Parliament  stood  prorogued  to  the  1st  November,  and  a 
Meeting  of  proclamation  had  appeared  in  the  “ Gazette,” 
Parliament,  declaring  the  king’s  pleasure  that  it  should  be 
further  prorogued  by  commission  to  the  29th.  But  before 
this  commission  could  be  signed,  his  Majesty  became  so  ill 
that  the  Lord  Chancellor,  unable  to  obtain  his  signature,  did 
not  feel  justified  in  affixing  the  great  seal ; and  in  this  view 
of  his  duty,  statesmen  of  all  parties  concurred.2  Following 

1 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Cor.,  iv.  315. 

2 Lord  Campbell,  however,  says,  “ It  would  have  been  but  a small  liberty 
to  have  passed  this  commission,  for  there  had  been  an  order  made  at  a coun- 
cil, at  which  the  king  presided,  to  prorogue  Parliament  from  the  1st  to  the 
29th  November,  and  to  prepare  a commission  for  this  purpose.”  — Lives  of 
the  Chancellors , vii.  242. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


173 


the  precedent  of  1788,  both  Houses  met  on  the  1st  No- 
vember ; and  on  being  informed  of  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  assembled,1  adjourned  until  the  15th,  — 
fourteen  days  being  the  shortest  period  within  which  Parlia- 
ment may,  by  law,  be  summoned  for  despatch  of  business. 
Circular  letters  were  directed  to  be  sent,  summoning  the 
members  of  both  Houses  to  attend  on  that  day.  Strong 
hopes  had  been  entertained  by  the  physicians,  of  his  Maj- 
esty’s speedy  recovery ; and  in  the  interval  they  were  con- 
firmed. Both  Houses,  therefore,  on  these  representations 
being  made,  again  adjourned  for  a fortnight.  Before  their 
next  meeting  the  king’s  physicians  were  examined  Nov.  29. 
by  the  privy  council ; and  as  they  were  still  confident  of  his 
Majesty’s  recovery,  a further  adjournment  for  a fortnight 
was  agreed  upon,  — though  not  without  objections  to  so  long 
an  interruption  of  business,  and  a division  in  both  Houses. 

No  longer  delay  could  now  be  suggested ; and  at  the  next 
meeting,  a committee  of  twenty -one  members  was  Dec.  13. 
appointed  in  both  Houses,  for  the  examination  of  the  king’s 
physicians.  They  still  entertained  hopes  of  his  Majesty’s 
ultimate  recovery,  in  spite  of  his  age  and  blindness ; but 
could  not  form  any  opinion  as  to  the  probable  duration  of 
his  illness. 

Continuing  to  follow  generally  the  precedent  of  1788, 
ministers  proposed,  on  the  20th  December,  in  a precedent  of 
committee  on  the  state  of  the  nation,  three  resolu-  1788  followed- 
tions,  — affirming  the  king’s  incapacity,  — the  right  and  duty* 
of  the  two  Houses  to  provide  for  this  exigency,  — and  the 
necessity  of  determining  by  what  means  the  royal  assent 
should  be  signified  to  a bill  for  that  purpose. 

Again  the  question  of  proceeding  by  bill,  or  by  address 
was  argued.  The  proceedings  of  1788  were  exposed  to  a 

1 In  the  Commons,  the  Speaker  first  took  his  seat  at  the  table,  and  ex- 
plained the  circumstances  under  which  the  House  had  met,  before  he  took 
the  chair.  — Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  3.  On  taking  the  chair,  he 
acquainted  the  House  that  he  had  issued  a new  writ  during  the  recess. 


174 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


searching  criticism,  and  all  the  precedents  of  constitutional 
history,  presenting  any  analogy  to  the  present  cir- 

Discussions  J r ° J 

upon  that  cumstances,  learnedly  investigated.  The  expe- 
precedent.  jients  which  had  delighted  Lord  Eldon  in  his  early 
career,  found  little  favor  with  the  more  philosophic  lawyers 
of  a later  school.  Sir  S.  Romilly  regarded  them  “ in  no 
other  light  but  as  a fraudulent  trick,”  and  asked  what  would 
be  said  of  “ a set  of  men  joining  together,  and  making  a con- 
tract for  another  in  a state  of  insanity,  and  employing  a per- 
son as  his  solicitor,  to  affix  his  seal  or  his  signature  to  such 
a deed  ? ” 

Considering  the  recency  and  complete  application  of  the 
precedent  of  1778,  it  is  not  surprising  that  both  ministers 
and  Parliament  should  have  agreed  to  follow  it,  instead  of 
adopting  a more  simple  course  ; but  to  most  minds  of  the 
present  age,  the  arguments  of  those  who  contended  for  an 
address,  and  against  the  “ Phantom,”  will  appear  the  more 
conclusive.  The  royal  authority  was  wanting,  and  could  be 
supplied  by  Parliament  alone.  So  far  all  were  agreed  ; but 
those  who  argued  for  proceeding  by  means  of  a bill,  accepted 
a notoriously  fictitious  use  of  the  king’s  name,  as  an  equiva- 
lent for  his  real  authority ; while  those  who  supported  a di- 
rect address,  desired  that  Parliament,  — openly  recognizing 
the  king’s  inability  to  exercise  his  royal  authority,  — should 
from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  proceed  to  act  without  it. 
Of  all  the  speeches  against  proceeding  by  way  of  bill,  the 
most  learned,  able,  and  argumentative,  was  that  of  Mr. 
Francis  Horner.1  Comparing  the  proceedings  of  1788, 
with  those  of  the  Revolution  of  1688,  he  said:  “It  is  im- 
possible not  to  contrast  the  virtuous  forbearance  of  all  par- 
ties at  the  Revolution,  in  concurring  to  provide  for  the  pub- 
lic interests,  with  the  struggle  that  was  made  for  power  in 
the  other  instance  ; and,  above  all,  to  contrast  the  studied 
delays  by  which  power  was  then  so  factiously  retained,  with 
the  despatch  with  which  our  ancestors  finished,  in  one  short 
1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  299. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


175 


month,  their  task  of  establishing  at  once  the  succession  to 
the  Crown,  reducing  its  prerogatives  within  limitations  by 
law,  and  founding  the  whole  structure  of  our  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberties.”  1 

But  independently  of  precedents  and  legal  forms,  the  min- 
isters expecting,  like  their  predecessors  in  1788, 

r , . ’ Political 

to  be  dismissed  by  the  regent,  were  not  disposed  causes  of  de- 
to  simplify  the  preliminary  proceedings,  and  ac-  lay' 
celerate  their  own  fall ; while  the  Opposition,  impatient  for 
office,  objected  to  elaborate  preliminaries,  — as  much,  per- 
haps, for  the  delays  which  they  occasioned,  as  for  their  hol- 
low subtlety  and  uselessness. 

The  resolutions  were  agreed  to,  and  communicated  to  the 
Lords,  at  a conference.  There  an  amendment  „ , 

7 . Resolutions 

was  moved  by  Lord  Holland,  to  the  third  resolu-  agreed  to  Dec. 

tion,  by  which  an  address  to  the  Prince  of  Wales 
was  proposed  to  be  substituted  for  the  proceeding  by  bill, 
inviting  the  prince  to  take  upon  himself  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  and  authorities  of  the  Crown,  but  to  abstain  from  the 
exercise  of  such  powers  as  the  immediate  exigencies  of  the 
state  shall  not  call  into  action,  until  Parliament  had  passed 
a bill  for  the  future  care  of  his  Majesty’s  person,  and  se- 
curing the  resumption  of  his  authority.2  The  Dukes  of 
York  and  Sussex  spoke  in  favor  of  this  amendment,  and  all 
the  seven  dukes  of  the  blood  royal  voted  for  it : 3 but  the  res- 
olution was  carried  by  a majority  of  twenty-six.  The  royal 
dukes  also  signed  protests  against  the  rejection  of  the  amend- 
ment, and  against  the  third  resolution.4  The  chancellor  dif- 
fered widely  from  the  royal  dukes,  declaring  that  an  address 
from  the  two  Houses  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  praying  him 
to  exercise  the  royal  prerogatives  during  the  king’s  life, 
would  be  treasonable.5 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  306. 

2 Ibid.,  418. 

3 York,  Clarence,  Kent,  Cumberland,  Sussex,  Cambridge,  and  Gloucester. 

4 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  471. 

5 Ibid.,  459,  713. 


176 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


The  next  step  was  to  propose,  in  committee  on  the  state 
of  the  nation,  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  the  Prince  of 
Wales  should  be  empowered,  as  regent  of  the  kingdom,  to 
exercise  the  royal  authority,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of 
his  Majesty,  subject  to  such  limitations  as  shall  be  provided : 
that  for  a limited  time  the  regent  should  not  be  able  to  grant 
any  peerage,  except  for  some  singular  naval  or  military 
achievement : 1 nor  grant  any  office  in  reversion : nor  any 
office  otherwise  than  during  pleasure,  except  such  offices  as 
are  required  by  law  to  be  granted  for  life  or  during  good  be- 
havior : that  his  Majesty’s  private  property,  not  already 
vested  in  trustees,  should  be  vested  in  trustees  for  the  bene- 
fit of  his  Majesty : that  the  care  of  the  king’s  person  should 
be  committed  to  the  queen,  who  for  a limited  time,  should 
have  power  to  appoint  and  remove  members  of  the  royal 
household;  and  that  her  Majesty  should  have  a council, 
with  power  to  examine  the  king’s  physicians,  upon  oath, 
from  time  to  time.  It  was  explained,  at  the  same  time,  that 
twelve  months  would  be  the  period  to  which  the  proposed 
limitations  upon  the  regent’s  authority  would  extend. 

Four  of  these  resolutions  were  agreed  to  in  the  Com- 
mons by  small  majorities,2  and  not  without  strong  arguments 
against  any  restrictions  upon  the  authority  of  the  regent. 
The  fifth  was  amended  on  a motion  of  Earl  Gower,  in  such 
a manner  as  to  leave  the  queen  merely  “ such  direction  of 
the  household  as  may  be  suitable  for  the  care  of  his  Majes- 
ty’s person  and  the  maintenance  of  the  royal  dignity.”  3 
The  resolutions  were  communicated  to  the  Lords  at  a 
conference.  There,  on  the  motion  of  the  Marquis  of  Lans 
downe,  the  first  resolution  was  amended  by  the  omission  of 
the  last  words,  viz.,  “ subject  to  such  limitations  and  restric- 

1 This  exception  was  subsequently  omitted. 

2 The  first  resolution  was  carried  by  a majority  of  24,  the  second  by  16, 
the  third  by  19. 

3 Voted  by  a majority  of  13  against  the  Government,  and  the  resolution 
as  amended  agreed  to  by  a majority  of  3. 


THE  KING’S  ILLNESSES. 


177 


tions  as  shall  be  provided  ” 1 — thus  appointing  the  regent 
generally,  without  restrictions  upon  his  authority.  But  as 
the  two  next  resolutions,  imposing  limitations  upon  the  grant 
of  peerages,  places,  and  pensions,  were  immediately  after- 
wards agreed  to,  the  words  were  restored  to  the  first  resolu- 
tion. And  thus  the  restrictions  proposed  by  the  Commons 
were  ultimately  agreed  to  without  alteration. 

The  next  step,  as  in  1789,  was  to  lay  these  resolutions 
before  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  to  beg  him  to  _ . 

7 ° # Resolutions 

accept  the  trust,  subject  to  the  proposed  restric-  laid  before 

tions ; and  in  reply,  he  signified  his  acceptance. 

The  queen  was  also  attended  in  regard  to  the  direction  of 
the  royal  household. 

Again,  it  was  resolved  by  both  Houses  that  a commission 
should  issue  under  the  great  seal  for  opening  Par-  ^ . . 

liament;  but  warned  by  the  precedent  of  1788,  for  opening 
ministers  had  taken  the  precaution  of  consulting 
the  royal  dukes,  and  by  their  desire  omitted  their  names 
from  the  commission.  On  the  15th  January,  Parliament 
was  opened  by  virtue  of  this  commission  ; and  the  Regency 
Bill  was  brought  in  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  on 
the  same  day.  The  bill,  though  still  the  subject  The  Regency 
of  much  discussion,  was  rapidly  passed  through  Biu  Passed- 
both  Houses,  with  some  few  amendments.  Resolutions  were 
agreed  to  by  both  Houses,  authorizing  the  issue  of  letters- 
patent  under  the  great  seal,  for  giving  the  royal  assent  by 
commission  ; and  on  the  5th  February,  the  bill  received  * the 
royal  assent  by  virtue  of  that  commission. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  both  this  commission  and  that 
for  opening  Parliament,  deviated  materially  from  Form  of  the 
the  usual  form  of  such  commissions,  and  instead  C0mmissl0n- 
of  being  issued  by  the  advice  of  the  privy  council,  it  was 
expressed  thus : “ by  the  king  himself,  by  and  with  the  ad- 
vice of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  Commons  in 
Parliament  assembled.” 

1 By  a majority  of  3. 

VOL.  i.  12 


178 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  THIRD. 


During  these  proceedings,  an  unexpected  difficulty  had 
issue  of  pub-  arisen.  Certain  sums  of  money  had  already  been 
he  money.  granted,  and  appropriated  by  Parliament,  for  the 
service  of  the  army  and  navy ; but  in  consequence  of  the 
king’s  incapacity,  the  usual  warrants  under  the  privy  seal, 
could  not  be  prepared,  directing  issues  to  be  made  from  the 
Exchequer,  for  such  services.  The  Lord  Keeper  of  the 
privy  seal  was  willing  to  take  upon  himself  the  responsi- 
bility of  affixing  the  seal  to  such  a warrant,1  although  by 
the  terms  of  his  oath  he  was  restrained  from  using  it  “ with- 
out the  king’s  special  command  : ” 2 but  the  deputy  clerks 
of  the  Privy  Seal  held  themselves  precluded  by  their  oaths 
of  office,  from  preparing  letters  to  pass  the  privy  seal,  until 
a warrant  had  been  signed  by  the  king  himself,  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  necessities  of  the  public  service  were  urgent ; 
and  the  Treasury  being  unable  to  obtain  the  money  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  official  routine,  prepared  two  warrants  ad- 
dressed to  the  auditor  of  the  Exchequer,  directing  him  to 
draw  one  order  on  the  Bank  of  England  for  500,000?.,  on 
account  of  the  army,  and  another  to  the  same  amount,  for 
Difficulties  the  navy.  The  auditor,  Lord  Grenville,  doubting 
LorddGren-  the  authority  of  these  warrants,  desired  that  the 
vilie-  law  officers  of  the  Crown  should  be  consulted.  It 

was  their  opinion  that  the  Treasury  warrants  were  not  a 
sufficient  authority  for  the  auditor,  who  accordingly  refused 
to  issue  the  money ; and  although  the  Treasury  expressly 
assumed  the  entire  responsibility  of  the  issue,  he  persisted 
in  his  refusal. 

It  was  now  necessary  to  resort  to  Parliament  to  supply 
Resolution  of  defect  °f  authority  which  had  been  discovered ; 
both  Houses  and  on  the  4th  January  the  Chancellor  of  the 

directing  the  J 

issue  of  Exchequer  moved  a resolution  in  committee  of 
the  whole  House,  by  which  the  auditor  and  offi- 


1 Speech  of  Mr.  Perceval,  4th  Jan.,  and  of  Lord  Westmorland,  5th  Jan., 
1811.  — Hansard’s  Debates , 1st  Ser.,  xviii.  759,  798. 

2 Speech  of  Earl  Spencer,  5th  Jan.,  1811.  — Hansards  Debates , 1st  Ser., 
xviii.  797. 


THE  ROYAL  SIGN-MANUAL. 


179 


cers  of  the  Exchequer  were  “ authorized  and  commanded  ” 
to  pay  obedience  to  Treasury  warrants  for  the  issue  of  such 
sums  as  had  been  appropriated  for  the  services  of  the  army 
and  navy,  as  well  as  money  issuable  under  a vote  of  credit 
for  3,000,000/.  To  this  resolution  it  was  objected,  that  it 
involved  a further  assumption  of  the  executive  powers  of 
the  Crown,  and  was  only  rendered  necessary  by  the  un- 
reasonable delays  which  ministers  had  interposed,  in  provid- 
ing for  the  exercise  of  the  royal  authority  : but  the  imme- 
diate necessity  of  the  occasion  could  not  be  denied ; and 
the  resolution  was  agreed  to  by  both  Houses.  A protest, 
however,  was  entered  in  the  Lords’  journal,  signed  by 
twenty-one  peers,  including  six  royal  dukes,  which  affirmed 
that  the  principle  of  the  resolution  would  justify  the  assump- 
tion of  all  the  executive  powers  of  the  Crown,  during  any 
suspension  of  the  personal  exercise  of  the  royal  authority ; 
and  that  this  unconstitutional  measure  might  have  been 
avoided  without  injury  to  the  public  service,  by  an  address 
to  the  Prince  of  Wales.1 

Happily  there  has  been  no  recurrence  of  circumstances 
similar  to  those  of  1788  and  1811 : but  Parlia- 

i n i The  Royal 

ment  has  since  had  occasion  to  provide  tor  the  Sign-Manual 

exercise  of  the  royal  authority,  under  other  con-  BlU’ 1830' 

tingencies.  From  an  early  period  in  the  reign  of  George 

IV.,  his  Majesty’s  health  had  excited  apprehensions.2  In 

1826  his  life  was  said  not  to  be  worth  a month’s  purchase  ; 3 

but  it  was  not  until  within  a few  weeks  of  his  death,  that  he 

suffered  from  any  incapacity  to  exercise  his  royal  functions. 

In  1830,  during  the  last  illness  of  the  king,  his  Majesty 

found  it  inconvenient  and  painful  to  subscribe  with  his  own 

hand,  the  public  instruments  which  required  the  sign-man- 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  1st  Ser.,  xviii.  801. 

2 Duke  of  Buckingham’s  Court  of  George  IV.,  i.  313,  336,  447 ; Ibid.,  ii. 
67,  217.  Sir  William  Knighton’s  Mem.  88,  &c. 

3 Mr.  Plumer  Ward  to  Duke  of  Buckingham,  April  21,  1826.  Court  of 
George  IV.,  ii.  297;  Ibid.,  300,  301. 


180 


REIGN  OF  GEORGE  THE  FOURTH. 


ual ; and  accordingly,  on  the  24th  of  May,  a message  was 
sent  to  both  Houses,  desiring  that  provision  should  be  made 
for  the  temporary  discharge  of  this  duty.1  The  message 
was  acknowledged  by  suitable  addresses  ; and  a bill  was 
passed  rapidly  through  both  Houses,  enabling  his  Majesty 
to  empower  by  warrant  or  commission,  under  his  sign-man- 
ual, one  or  more  persons  to  affix,  in  his  presence,  and  by  his 
command,  signified  by  word  of  mouth,  the  royal  signature 
by  means  of  a stamp.  In  order  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  any  abuse  of  this  power,  it  was  provided  that  the  stamp 
should  not  be  affixed  to  any  instrument,  unless  a memoran- 
dum describing  its  object  had  been  indorsed  upon  it,  signed 
by  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  President  of  the  Council,  the 
Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  and  the 
Secretaries  of  State,  or  any  three  of  them.  The  seal  was 
directed  to  be  kept  in  the  custody  of  one  of  these  officers, 
and  when  used,  was  required  to  be  attested  by  one  or  more 
of  them. 

The  course  thus  adopted  was  not  without  precedent. 
„ . . Henry  VIII.  had  issued  a patent,  authorizing  the 

\diich  found-  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
and  other  persons  to  apply  a stamp,  bearing  the 
impress  of  the  royal  signature,  to  warrants  for  the  payment 
of  money  out  of  the  royal  treasury ; and  had  also  issued 
several  proclamations  and  other  instruments,  on  which  his 
sign-manual  had  been  impressed  by  means  of  a stamp. 
His  signature  to  the  commission  for  signifying  the  royal 
assent  to  the  bill  for  the  attainder  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk 
had  been  given  by  means  of  a stamp,  affixed,  — not  by  his 
own  hand,  but  by  that  of  a clerk,  — and  was  on  that  ac- 
count declared  by  Parliament  to  be  invalid.  Edward  VI. 
had  issued  two  proclamations,  to  which  his  signature  was 
affixed  by  means  of  a stamp.  Queen  Mary  had  issued  a 
proclamation,  in  the  same  form,  calling  for  aid  to  suppress 
the  insurrection  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt.  The  same  queen 
1 Hansard’s  Debates,  New  Ser.,  xxiv.  986,  1001. 


THE  ROYAL  SIGH-MANUAL. 


181 


had  issued  a patent,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  years  of  her  reign, 
stating  that  in  consequence  of  the  great  labor  which  she 
sustained  in  the  government  and  defence  of  the  kingdom, 
she  was  unable,  without  much  danger  and  inconvenience,  to 
sign  the  commissions,  warrants,  and  other  instruments  with 
her  own  hand ; empowering  certain  persons  to  affix  a seal 
in  her  presence  ; and  declaring  that  all  instruments  so  sealed 
should  be  as  valid  and  effectual  in  law,  as  if  signed  with  the 
hand  of  the  queen.  It  appears  also  that  King  William  III., 
being  on  the  point  of  death,  and  no  longer  able  to  sign  his 
own  name,  affixed  a stamp  to  a commission,  in  presence 
of  the  Lord  Keeper  and  the  clerks  of  the  Parliament,  by 
which  the  royal  assent  was  signified  to  the  Bill  of  Abjura- 
tion, and  the  Malt  Duty  Bill. 

But  notwithstanding  these  precedents,  — * which  proved 
that  in  former  times  the  kings  of  England  had  been  accus- 
tomed, by  their  own  authority,  to  delegate  to  others  the 
right  of  affixing  their  sign-manual,  — it  was  now  laid  down 
by  ministers,  and  by  all  legal  authorities,  that  such  a right 
could  not  lawfully  be  conferred,  except  by  the  sanction  of 
Parliament.  This  sanction  was  readily  given  in  this  par- 
ticular case ; but  not  without  warnings  that  as  his  Majesty’s 
present  indisposition  was  merely  physical,  the  proceedings 
then  adopted  should  not  hereafter  be  drawn  into  a precedent, 
if  the  mind  of  any  future  king  should  become  affected.  In 
such  an  event,  the  power  of  affixing  the  royal  sign-manual 
to  instruments,  would  invest  the  ministers  of  the  day  with 
all  the  authority  of  the  Crown.  On  more  than  one  occasion, 
during  the  late  reign,  such  a power  might  have  been  liable 
to  abuse;  and  it  would  not  again  be  conferred  upon  minis- 
ters, if  there  should  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  mental  capacity 
of  the  sovereign.1 

When  William  IV.  succeeded  to  the  throne,  he  was  nearly 

1 11  Geo.  IV.  and  1 Will.  IV.  c.  23 ; Hansard’s  Debates,  New  Ser.,  xxiv. 
986,1062,1132,  1148,  1193;  Rymer’s  Foedera,  x.  261;  Cotton,  564;  Bur- 
net’s Own  Time,  iv.  559;  Hume’s  Hist.,  ii.  328;  Smollett’s  Hist.,  i.  441. 


182 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


sixty-five  years  of  age,  and  his  heiress  presumptive  was  a prin- 
Question  of  a cess  of  eleven.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  pro- 
thee  accession  v^e  f°r  a regency ; but  the  ministers  were  of 
of  William  iv.  opinion  that  they  might  safely  defer  this  measure, 
until  after  the  assembling  of  a new  Parliament.  Even  this 
brief  delay  was  represented  as  hazardous.  It  was  said  that 
if  the  king  should  die  suddenly,  the  crown  would  devolve 
upon  an  infant  princess,  — subject,  perhaps,  to  the  claims  of 
a posthumous  child  of  his  Majesty.  This  risk,  however,  the 
ministers  were  prepared  to  encounter.  The  law  did  not  rec- 
ognize the  incapacity  of  an  infant  king ; and,  in  the  event 
of  a sudden  demise  of  the  Crown  before  a regent  had  been 
appointed,  the  infant  sovereign  would  be  able  to  give  her 
assent  to  an  act  of  Parliament,  appointing  a guardian  for 
herself,  and  a regent  for  the  kingdom.  Henry  III.,  Richard 
II.,  and  Henry  VI.  had  succeeded  to  the  throne,  without  any 
previous  parliamentary  provision  for  a regency;  and  after 
their  accession,  Parliament  appointed  persons  to  govern  the 
kingdom  during  their  minority. 

The  Lord  Chancellor  said : u On  the  accession  of  an  infant 
to  the  throne,  the  same  course  would  be  adopted  as  if  the 
sovereign  were  of  mature  years  : a declaration,  similar  to  that 
which  many  of  their  lordships  had  witnessed  a few  days  ago, 
would  be  made.  The  infant  would  have  the  power  of  con- 
tinuing or  changing  his  ministers,  and  the  same  responsibility 
would  exist  as  at  present.”  1 And  this  doctrine  of  the  law 
was  thus  explained  by  Lord  Eldon : “ If  an  infant  sovereign 
were  to  be  on  the  throne,  whose  head  could  not  be  seen  over 
the  integument  which  covered  the  head  of  his  noble  and 
learned  friend  on  the  woolsack,  he  would,  by  what  the  Scotch 
called  a fiction  of  law,  and  by  what  the  English  called  pre- 
sumption, in  favor  of  a royal  infant,  be  supposed  to  have  as 
much  sense,  knowledge,  and  experience,  as  if  he  had  reached 
the  years  of  threescore  and  ten.” 2 

This  abstract  presumption  of  the  law  was  not  denied  ; but 
1 Hansard’s  Debates,  2d  Ser.,  xxv.  738.  2 Ibid.,  742. 


THE  REGENCY  BILL  OF  1831. 


183 


it  was  argued  that  to  rely  upon  it  in  practice,  would  bring  into 
contempt  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  and  might  be  fraught 
with  dangers  to  the  state.  An  infant  sovereign  might  indeed 
appoint  her  own  guardian,  and  a regent  of  the  kingdom  ; but 
she  would  scarcely  be  more  competent  to  exercise  the  dis- 
criminating judgment  of  a sovereign,  than  was  George  III. 
when  the  royal  assent  was  given,  in  his  name,  to  the  Regency 
Bill,  by  a phantom  commission.  That  necessary  act  had 
struck  a blow  at  royalty : it  had  shown  how  Parliament  could 
make  laws  without  a king : it  had  exhibited  the  Crown  as 
a name,  a form,  a mere  fiction  of  authority ; and  to  allow  a 
princess  of  eleven  to  assent  to  another  act  of  regency,  would 
be  a dangerous  repetition  of  that  precedent.  But  there  were 
other  dangers  which  ought  to  be  averted.  It  was  easy,  be- 
fore the  demise  of  the  Crown,  to  appoint  a regent  who  might 
never  be  called  upon  to  exercise  his  power ; but  to  appoint, 
— - possibly  from  amongst  many  claimants,  — a regent  who 
would  at  once  assume  all  the  authority  of  the  Crown,  might 
be  difficult  and  embarrassing.  Still  greater  would  be  the 
embarrassment,  if  the  right  of  succession  should  be  rendered 
doubtful,  by  the  prospective  claims  of  an  unborn  child.  An 
attempt  was  made,  in  the  Commons,  to  represent  to  the  king 
the  importance  of  making  immediate  provision  for  a regency  ; 
but  the  ministers  successfully  resisted  it ; and  the  question 
was  reserved  for  the  consideration  of  the  new  Parliament.1 

Happily,  these  dreaded  evils  were  not  encountered ; and 
on  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament,  a well-con- 

^ The  Regency 

sidered  Regency  Bill  was  introduced.  By  this  bill  Bm,  1830- 
the  Duchess  of  Kent  was  appointed  sole  regent, 
until  her  Majesty  should  attain  the  age  of  eighteen.  De- 
parting from  former  precedents,  it  was  not  proposed  that  the 
regent  should  be  controlled  by  a council.  It  was  said  that  a 
regent,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  royal  authority,  needed 
the  free  exercise  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  even  more 
than  a king  himself.  Cases  might,  indeed,  arise  in  which  it 
1 Hansard’s  Debates,  2d  Ser.,  xxv.  771-828. 


184 


REIGN  OF  WILLIAM  THE  FOURTH. 


would  be  necessary  to  control  the  ambition  and  influence  of 
a regent,  by  such  a council : but  here  the  regent  could  never 
succeed  to  the  throne : her  interests  were  identified  with 
those  of  the  future  sovereign,  to  whom  she  was  united  by  the 
tenderest  ties ; and  she  could  have  no  object  but  to  uphold, 
in  good  faith,  the  authority  of  the  infant  queen.  Her  Royal 
Highness  would,  therefore,  be  left  to  administer  the  govern- 
ment of  the  country,  by  means  of  the  responsible  ministers 
of  the  Crown,  and  to  act  upon  their  advice  alone. 

Another  question  of  great  constitutional  delicacy  was  also 
wisely  dealt  with.  No  precedent  was  to  be  found,  since  the 
Norman  Conquest,  of  any  provision  having  been  made  for 
the  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogatives,  between  the  demise  of 
the  Crown,  and  the  birth  of  a posthumous  child.  The  law 
upon  this  important  question  was  not  settled ; but  reasoning 
from  the  analogy  of  the  law  of  real  property,  as  well  as  accord- 
ing to  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  it  was  clear  that  an  un- 
born child  could  not  be  seized  of  the  Crown.  There  could  be 
no  abeyance  or  vacancy  of  the  Crown.  The  king  never  dies. 
The  crown  must,  therefore,  devolve  at  once  upon  the  heir  pre- 
sumptive ; and  be  resigned,  if  a child  should  be  born,  entitled 
to  inherit  it.  If  Parliament  interposed,  and  appointed  a regent 
to  administer  the  government  until  the  birth  of  a posthumous 
child,  such  a regent  would  not  be  governing  in  the  name  and 
on  behalf  of  the  sovereign,  but  would  be  a parliamentary  sov- 
ereign, created  for  the  occasion,  under  the  title  of  regent. 
And,  in  the  mean  time,  if  no  child  should  be  born,  the  heir 
presumptive  would  have  been  unlawfully  deprived  of  her 
right  to  the  throne.  Upon  these  sound  principles  the  regency 
was  now  to  be  established.  If  the  king  should  die  during  the 
minority  of  the  Princess  Victoria,  she  was  to  be  proclaimed 
queen,  subject  to  the  rights  of  any  issue  of  his  Majesty,  which 
might  afterwards  be  born  of  his  consort.  The  Duchess  of 
Kent  would  at  once  assume  the  regency  in  the  name  of  the 
Infant  Queen,  and  on  her  behalf ; and  should  a posthumous 
child  be  born,  her  Majesty  Queen  Adelaide  would  forthwith 


REGENCY  ACTS  OF  1837  AND  1840. 


185 


assume  the  regency,  on  behalf  of  her  own  child.  These  prin- 
ciples were  accepted  by  statesmen  and  lawyers  of  every 
party ; and  the  Regency  Bill,  which  had  been  prepared  by 
the  government  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  was  adopted  and 
passed  by  the  government  of  Lord  Grey.1  It  was  a wise 
provision  for  contingencies,  which  fortunately  never  arose. 
When  King  William  IV.  died,  in  1887,  after  a short  but 
eventful  reign,  her  most  gracious  Majesty  had,  less  than  a 
month  before,  completed  her  eighteenth  year  ; and  ascended 
the  throne,  surrounded  by  happy  auguries,  which  have  since 
been  fully  accomplished. 

On  the  accession  of  her  Majesty,  the  King  of  Hanover 
became  heir  presumptive  to  the  throne ; and  as  „ 

First  Regency 

he  would  probably  be  resident  abroad,  it  was  Act  of  Queen 
. , r J . , , . , Victoria. 

thought  necessary  to  provide  that,  in  the  event 
of  her  Majesty’s  decease,  while  her  successor  was  out  of  the 
realm,  the  administration  of  the  government  should  be  car- 
ried on  in  his  name  by  lords  justices,  until  his  arrival.2  But 
the  queen’s  marriage,  in  1840,  required  provision  gecondRe 
to  be  made  for  another  contingency,  which,  though  geocy  Act, 
more  probable,  has,  happily  not  arisen.  Follow- 
ing the  precedent  of  1831,  Parliament  now  provided,  that  in 
the  event  of  any  child  of  her  Majesty  succeeding  to  the  throne 
before  the  age  of  eighteen,  Prince  Albert,  as  the  surviving 
parent,  should  be  regent,  without  any  council  of  regency,  or 
any  limitation  upon  the  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogatives, — 
except  an  incapacity  to  assent  to  any  bill  for  altering  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne,  or  affecting  the  uniformity  of  worship 
in  the  Church  of  England,  or  the  rights  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland.  And,  founded  upon  these  principles,  the  bill  was 
passed  with  the  approval  of  all  parties.3 

1 Act  1 Will.  IV.  c.  2;  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  i.  499,  764,  954,  &c. 

2 7 Will.  IV.  and  1 Viet.  c.  72. 

3 3 & 4 Viet.  c.  52;  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  lv.  754,  850, 1074. 


186 


REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Ancient  Revenues  of  the  Crown.  — Settlement  of  the  Civil  List  of  William 
and  Mary  : — Civil  List  of  Queen  Anne,  of  George  I.  and  George  II.  — 
Civil  List,  Expenditure,  and  Debts  of  George  III.  : — Civil  List  of  the 
Regency,  and  of  the  Reigns  of  George  IV.,  William  IV.,  and  Her  Maj- 
esty : — Duchess  of  Lancaster  and  Cornwall  : — Private  Property  of  the 
Crown.  — Provision  for  the  Royal  Family  : — Management  of  the  Land 
Revenues,  on  behalf  of  the  Public  : — Civil  List  Pensions.  — Preroga- 
tives of  the  Crown,  in  relation  to  the  Royal  Family. 

The  history  of  the  land  revenues  of  the  Crown  presents 
Vast  posses-  as  many  vicissitudes,  and  varied  fortunes,  as  are 
Crownfinhear- to  be  found  in  the  domestic  annals  of  any  family 
ly  times.  jn  the  kingdom. 

The  entire  lands  of  the  realm  were  originally  held  of  the 
Crown,  by  various  feudal  tenures ; and  the  royal  revenues 
were  derived  from  tines,  fees,  first-fruits,  and  tenths,  and 
other  profits  arising  from  these  lands,  and  from  the  rents  of 
the  ancient  demesnes  of  the  Crown.  To  support  the  bar- 
barous magnificence  of  his  household,  — his  numerous  re- 
tainers, and  rude  hospitality,  — was  nearly  the  sole  expense 
of  the  king ; for,  as  feudal  superior,  he  commanded  the  ser- 
vices of  his  tenants  in  the  field,  who  fought  by  his  side  with 
an  array  of  men  and  horses,  equipped  and  maintained  at  their 
own  expense. 

By  means  of  escheats  and  forfeitures,  there  was  even  a 
Extensive  for-  danger  of  the  Crown  becoming  the  absolute  pro- 
feitures.  prietor  of  all  the  lands  of  the  realm.  But  vast  as 
were  the  king’s  possessions,  they  were  not  vast  enough  to 
satisfy  the  rapacity  of  his  followers  ; and  in  every  succeed- 
ing reign,  the  grants  and  alienations  of  crown  lands  ex- 


REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN. 


187 


ceeded  the  escheats  and  forfeitures.  The  estates  of  the 
Crown  were  further  diminished  by  wrongful  appro-  Grants  and 
priations  and  encroachments.  Repenting  their alienatl0ns* 
liberality,  kings  frequently  resumed  their  former  grants  ; and 
alienations  improvidently  made,  were  unjustly  and  violently 
revoked.  Yet  such  had  been  the  waste  of  the  once  ample 
revenues  of  the  Crown,  that  Henry  III.  complained  that 
they  had  become  too  scanty  to  furnish  his  royal  table  ; and 
the  needy  monarch  was  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  giving 
tallies  for  the  supply  of  beeves  and  grain  for  his  household. 
An  extensive  resumption  of  grants,  however,  and  the  for- 
feiture of  the  estates  of  rebel  barons,  retrieved  his  fallen 
fortunes.  Such  was  the  liberality  of  Edward  II.  that  an  or- 
dinance was  passed  by  Parliament  prohibiting  the  alienation 
of  crown  lands,  — which  was  repealed,  however,  by  a Par- 
liament at  York,  in  the  15th  year  of  his  reign.  But  the 
profusion  of  this  king  was  supplied  by  prodigious  forfeitures. 

Richard  II.  again,  was  not  less  profuse  in  his  grants,  nor 
less  prodigal  in  his  confiscations.  The  Wars  of  the  Roses 
were  so  fruitful  of  forfeitures,  that  a large  proportion  of  the 
land  of  the  realm  became  the  property  of  the  Crown.  Had 
it  been  retained,  there  would  have  been  no  monarchy  in 
Europe  so  absolute  as  that  of  England : but  the  spoils  of  one 
faction  were  eagerly  grasped  by  the  other ; and  the  Crown 
gained  little  by  the  lands  which  it  won  upon  the  field  of  bat- 
tle, or  wrested  from  their  owners  on  the  scaffold.  In  the 
reign  of  Henry  Y.  the  estates  of  the  Crown  were  consider- 
ably augmented  by  the  appropriation  of  the  Alien  Priories, 
one  hundred  and  ten  in  number.  Yet  the  income  of  Henry 
YI.  was  reduced  so  low  as  5,000?.  a year ; and  in  his  reign, 
several  general  resumptions  of  grants  were  authorized  by 
Parliament,  in  order  to  supply  his  necessities. 

The  rapacity  of  Henry  YII.  was  needed  to  retrieve  the 
revenues  of  the  Crown  ; and  his  exactions  and  thrift  re- 
paired the  waste  of  former  reigns.  His  acquisitions,  how- 
ever, were  as  nothing  compared  with  the  wholesale  plunder 


188 


REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN. 


of  the  monasteries,  and  other  religious  and  charitable  foun- 
„ dations,  by  Henry  VIII.,  which  has  been  valued 

Increase  of  7 J J 7 

land  revenues  at  upwards  of  30,000,000/.  sterling.1  Yet  such. 
vii.  and  were  the  magnificence  and  prodigality  of  this  king, 
that  at  his  death,  his  treasury  was  found  to  be 
entirely  empty.  The  Crown  was  as  poor  as  ever  : but  the 
great  nobles,  who  were  enriched  by  grants  of  the  Church 
lands  — more  provident  than  their  royal  master — held  them 
fast  for  their  descendants.  In  the  seventh  year  of  the  reign 
of  James  I.  the  entire  land  revenues  of  the  Crown  and 
Duchy  of  Lancaster  amounted  to  no  more  than  66,870Z.  a 
year,  while  the  king’s  debts  exceeded  a million.2  During 
his  reign  he  sold  lands  to  the  extent  of  775,000/.,  and  left 
debts  of  about  an  equal  amount. 

But  more  evil  days  wrere  at  hand  for  the  land  revenues. 
^ t A.  Charles  I.,  unable  to  obtain  supplies  from  Parlia- 

Destruction  7 rjr 

of  land  reve-  ment,  and  gaining  little  from  his  illegal  exactions, 

the  Common was  forced  to  sell  and  mortgage  the  property 

of  the  Crown.  The  Parliament,  after  his  death, 
completed  the  spoliation,  of  which  he  had  set  them  the  ex- 
ample ; and  sold  nearly  all  the  royal  estates,  in  order  to  pay 
the  arrears  due  to  the  Parliamentary  forces,  and  discharge 
the  debts  of  the  new  Government.3  At  the  Restoration, 
these  sales  were  declared  void ; and  many  of  the  estates  of 
the  Crown  were  then  recovered.  But  they  were  recovered, 
Their  recov-  — to  be  again  squandered  and  dispersed.  In 
sequent SUb"  three  years,  Charles  II.  had  reduced  the  income 
waste.  0f  the  crown  lands  from  217,900/.  to  100,000/.  a 
year.  In  the  first  year  of  his  reign  he  surrendered  the 
Court  of  Wards  and  Liveries,  and  the  military  tenures,  in 
exchange  for  a settlement  of  certain  duties  of  excise ; 4 being 
the  first  instance  of  a surrender  by  the  Crown,  of  its  interest 


1 St.  John  on  the  Land  Revenues  of  the  Crown,  68. 

2 lb.  79. 

3 Scobell,  part  ii.  51,  106,  227,  &c. 

4 12  Car.  II.  c.  24. 


REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN. 


189 


in  any  part  of  the  hereditary  revenues.  During  this  reign, 
a large  proportion  of  the  fee-farm  rents  belonging  to  the 
Crown,  was  sold  by  Act  of  Parliament ; 1 and  further  grants 
of  these  rents  were  made  during  the  reigns  of  William  III. 
and  Queen  Anne.  The  liberality  of  William  III.  to  his  fol- 
lowers, provoked  remonstrances  from  Parliament.  He  was 
even  obliged  to  recall  an  enormous  grant  to  the  Earl  of 
Portland,  which  conveyed  to  that  nobleman  four  fifths  of  the 
county  of  Denbigh,  with  a reserved  rent  of  65.  8d.,  payable 
to  the  Crown : 2 but  he  compensated  the  Earl  with  other 
lands  and  manors.3 

So  jealous  were  the  Commons,  at  this  period,  of  the  con- 
tinual diminution  of  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown, 
that  several  bills  were  brought  in  to  resume  all  grants  made 
by  Charles  II.  and  James  II.,4  and  to  prevent  further  alien- 
ations of  crown  lands.5  At  the  end  of  William’s  reign, 
Parliament  having  obtained  accounts  of  the  state  of  the 
land  revenues,  found  that  they  had  been  reduced  by  grants, 
alienations,  incumbrances,  reversions,  and  pensions,  until 
they  scarcely  exceeded  the  rent-roll  of  a squire.6 

Such  an  abuse  of  the  rights  of  the  Crown  could  no  longer 
be  tolerated;  and  on  the  settlement  of  the  civil 

Alienations  of 

list  of  Queen  Anne,  Parliament  at  length  inter-  Crown  lands 
posed  to  restrain  it.  It  was  now  nearly  too  late. 

The  sad  confession  was  made,  “ that  the  necessary  expenses 
of  supporting  the  Crown,  or  the  greater  part  of  them,  were 
formerly  defrayed  by  a land  revenue,  which  had,  from  time 
to  time,  been  impaired  by  the  grants  of  former  kings  and 
queens,  so  that  Her  Majesty’s  land  revenues  could  then 
afford  very  little  towards  the  support  of  her  Government.”  7 

1 22  Car.  II.  c.  6 ; 22  and  23  Car.  II.  c.  24. 

2 1695  Pari.  Hist.  v.  978  ; Com.  Journ.,  xi.  391,  395,  409. 

3 Com.  Journ.  xi.  608. 

4 In  1697, 1699, 1700,  1702,  and  1703  : Com.  Journ.  xii.  90  ; lb.  xiii.  208, 
350  ; lb.  xiv.  95,  269,  305,  &c. 

5 In  1697  and  1699,  Com.  Journ.  xii.  90  ; lb.  xiii.  62. 

6 Com.  Journ.  xiii.  478,  498  ; St.  John  on  the  Land  Revenues,  99. 

7 1 Anne,  c.  7,  s.  5. 


190 


REVENUES  OF  THE  CROWN. 


Yet  to  preserve  what  was  still  left,  it  was  now  provided  that 
no  future  lease  (except  a building  lease)  should  be  granted 
for  more  than  thirty-one  years,  or  three  lives ; and  that  a 
reasonable  rent  should  be  reserved.  If  such  a law  as  this 
had  been  passed  immediately  after  the  Restoration,  the 
land  revenues  would  probably  have  provided  for  the  entire 
charge  of  the  civil  list  of  Queen  Anne.  But  at  least  the 
small  remnant  of  crown  lands  was  saved ; and  in  that  and 
the  next  two  reigns,  some  additions  were  made  to  the  royal 
estates,  by  escheats  and  forfeitures.1 

While  this  waste  of  the  crown  property  had  been  inju- 
Constitution-  ri°us  to  public  revenues,  it  favored  the  de- 
theimproy/-  velopment  of  the  liberties  of  the  people.  Kings 
deuce  of  with,  vast  hereditary  revenues,  — husbanded  and 

kings.  J 

improved,  — would  have  been  comparatively  in- 
dependent of  Parliament.  But  their  improvidence  gradu- 
ally constrained  them  to  rely  upon  the  liberality  of  their  sub- 
jects ; and  their  own  necessities,  and  the  increasing  expen- 
diture of  the  state,  at  length  placed  them  entirely  under  the 
control  of  Parliament. 

No  constitutional  change  has  been  more  important  in 

importance  securing  popular  control  over  the  executive  Gov- 

mentoftoe  ernment>  ^ian  voting  of  supplies  by  the  House 

revenues  of  0f  Commons  : nor  has  any  expedient  been  better 
the  Crown.  tit  . J r . 

calculated  to  restrain  the  undue  influence  of  the 
Crown,  than  a strict  settlement  of  its  revenues  by  Parlia- 
ment. In  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  the  principle  of  appro- 
Revenues  of  priating  supplies  to  specific  services  by  statute,  — 
prior  to'the  w^ich  had  not  been  without  previous  recognition, 
Revolution.  — was  formally  established  as  one  of  the  condi- 
tions, under  which  Parliament  granted  money  for  the  ser- 

1 Much  curious  learning  is  to  be  found  concerning  the  land  revenues  of 
the  Crown  in  Wright’s  Tenures  ; Hargrave’s  Notes  to  Coke  on  Littleton  ; 
Coke’s  1st  Inst.  ; Spelman’s  Works  (of  Feuds)  ; Lord  Hale’s  History  of 
the  Common  Law  ; Gilbert’s  Hist,  of  the  Exchequer  ; Maddox’s  Hist,  of 
the  Exchequer  ; Davenant  on  Resumptions  ; Dugdale’s  Monasticon  ; Ry- 
mer’s  Fcedera  ; Rapin’s  Hist. ; and  an  interesting  summary  in  St.  John’s 
Observations  on  the  Land  Revenues  of  the  Crown,  4to,  1787. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


191 


vice  of  the  state.  But  until  the  Be  volution,  no  limitation 
had  been  imposed  upon  the  personal  expenditure  of  the  sov- 
ereign. It  had  been  customary  for  Parliament  to  grant  to 
the  king,  at  the  commencement  of  each  reign,  the  ordinary 
revenues  of  the  Crown,  which  were  estimated  to  provide,  in 
time  of  peace,  for  the  support  of  His  Majesty’s  dignity 
and  civil  government,  and  for  the  public  defence.  To  these 
were  added,  from  time  to  time,  special  grants  for  extraor- 
dinary occasions.  The  ordinary  revenues  were  derived,  first, 
from  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown  itself,  and,  sec- 
ondly, from  the  produce  of  taxes  voted  to  the  king  for  life. 
The  hereditary  revenues  consisted  of  the  rents  of  crown 
lands,  of  feudal  rights,  the  proceeds  of  the  post-office,  and 
wine-licenses ; and,  after  the  surrender  of  feudal  tenures  by 
Charles  II.,  in  1660,  of  part  of  the  excise  duties. 

In  the  reign  of  James  II.  the  hereditary  revenues,  to- 
gether with  the  taxes  voted  for  the  king’s  life,  amounted  on 
an  average  to  1,500,964/.  a year.1  Whatever  remained  of 
this  annual  income,  after  the  payment  of  the  necessary 
expenses  of  the  Government,  was  at  the  king’s  absolute 
disposal,  — whether  for  the  support  of  his  dignity  and  in- 
fluence, or  for  his  pleasures  and  profusion.  Not  satisfied 
with  these  resources  for  his  personal  expenditure,  there  is 
no  doubt  that  Charles  II.  applied  to  his  own  privy  purse, 
large  sums  of  money  which  had  been  specially  appropriated 
by  Parliament,  for  carrying  on  the  war.2 

To  prevent  such  abuses  in  future  on  the  accession*  of 
William  and  Mary,  Parliament  made  a separate  qettlementof 
provision  for  the  king’s  “ Civil  List,”  — which  the  “ Civil 
embraced  the  support  of  the  royal  household,  and  liam  and 
the  personal  expenses  of  the  king,  as  well  as  the  Mary* 
payment  of  civil  offices  and  pensions.  The  revenue  voted  for 

1 Pari.  Hist.  y.  151  ; Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  ii.  279. 

2 Lord  Clarendon’s  Life,  iii.  131  ; Pepys’s  Diary,  Sept.  23d,  and  Dec. 
12th,  1666,  whence  it  appears  that  above  400,000?.  had  gone  into  the  Privy 
Purse  since  the  War.  — Memoirs , iii.  47,  105. 


192 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


the  support  of  the  Crown  in  time  of  peace,  was  1,200,000/. ; 
of  which  the  Civil  List  amounted  to  about  700,000/.,  being 
derived  from  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown,  esti- 
mated at  400,000/.  a year  and  upwards,  — and  from  a part 
...  M r . of  the  excise  duties,  producing  about  300, 000/.1 
comprised  The  system  thus  introduced  was  continued  in 

items  of  na-  . . . n.  « T • 

tionai  expen-  succeeding  reigns  ; and  the  Civil  List  still  com- 
prised not  only  the  expenses  of  the  sovereign, 
but  a portion  of  the  civil  expenditure  of  the  state. 

The  Civil  List  of  Queen  Anne  was  settled  by  Parliament 
Civil  List  of  the  same  form,  and  computed  at  the  same 
Queen  Anne.  amount  as  that  of  William  III.2  Her  Majesty, 
while  she  feared  the  revenue  granted  to  her  would  fall  short 
of  that  enjoyed  by  the  late  king,  promised  that  100,000/.  a 
year  should  be  applied  to  the  public  service.3  So  far,  how- 
ever, from  fulfilling  this  promise,  — during  the  twelve  years 
of  her  reign,  she  incurred  debts  amounting  to  1,200,000/., 
which  were  paid  off  by  Parliament,  by  way  of  loans  charged 
upon  the  Civil  List  itself. 

The  Civil  List  of  George  I.  was  computed  at  700,000/.  a 
Of  George  the  year  ; and,  during  his  reign,  debts  were  incurred 
Iirst*  to  the  extent  of  1,000,000/.,  which  were  dis- 
charged by  Parliament,  in  the  same  manner.4 

The  hereditary  revenues  were  continued  to  George  II., 
Of  George  the  with  a proviso  that  if  they  should  produce  less 
Second.  than  800,000/.  a year,  Parliament  would  make  up 
the  deficiency.  The  king,  however,  was  entitled  to  any  sur- 
plus above  that  sum.6  This  was  an  approximation  to  a defi- 
nite Civil  List,  as  the  minimum  at  least  was  fixed.  For  the 
last  five  years  of  his  reign  these  revenues  had  risen,  on  an 
average,  to  829,155/.  a year : but  during  the  whole  of  his 

1 Pari.  Hist.  v.  193 ; Com.  Journ.  x.  54,  438  ; Smollett  and  Hallam 
state  the  Civil  List  at  600,000?. 

2 1 Anne,  c.  7. 

8 Pari.  Hist.  vi.  11. 

4 1 Geo.  I.  c.  1;  Burke’s  Works,  ii.  309. 

8 1 Geo.  II.  c.  1. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


193 


reign,  they  amounted  to  less  than  800,000/.*  In  1746  a 
debt  of  456,000/.  on  the  Civil  List  was  discharged  by  Par- 
liament. This  debt  was  stated  by  the  king  to  have  been  in- 
curred in  consequence  of  the  hereditary  revenues  having 
fallen  short  of  800,000/.  a year ; and  parliament  was,  there- 
fore, bound  by  the  terms  of  its  original  contract,  to  make  up 
the  deficiency. 

On  the  accession  of  George  III.,  the  king  consented  to 
make  such  a disposition  of  his  interest  in  the  he-  civil  List  of 
reditary  revenues  of  the  Crown  in  England,  as  GeorseIIL 
Parliament  might  think  fit.  Hitherto  the  Crown  had  en- 
joyed certain  revenues  which  were  calculated  by  Parliament 
to  produce  a sufficient  income ; but  now  the  king  agreed  to 
accept  a fixed  amount  as  his  Civil  List,  “ for  the  support  of 
his  household,  and  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  Crown.” 2 
This  was  the  first  time  that  the  direct  control  of  Parliament 
over  the  personal  expenditure  of  the  king  had  been  acknowl- 
edged ; and  it  is  not  a little  curious  that  so  important  a 
change  in  the  relations  of  the  sovereign  to  Parliament, 
should  have  been  introduced  at  the  very  period  when  he 
was  seeking  to  extend  his  prerogatives,  and  render  himself 
independent  of  other  influences  in  the  state.  It  soon  ap- 
peared, however,  from  the  debts  incurred,  that  his  Majesty 
was  not  inclined  to  permit  this  concession  to  diminish  the 
influence  of  the  Crown. 

The  money  arising  out  of  the  hereditary  revenues,  secured 
by  various  Acts  of  Parliament  to  the  king’s  predecessors, 
was  now  carried  to  the  “ aggregate  fund,”  out  of  which  the 
annual  sum  of  723,000/.  was  granted  to  his  Majesty,  during 
the  continuance  of  the  existing  annuities  to  the  Princess 
Dowager  of  Wales,  the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  and  the  Prin- 
cess Amelie  ; and  as  these  charges  ceased,  the  amount  of 
the  Civil  List  was  to  be  increased  until  it  reached  800,000/. 
a year.  He  thus  accepted  the  minimum  Civil  List  of  his 

1 Report  on  Civil  List,  1815,  p.  4 ; Burke’s  Works,  ii.  310. 

2 Com.  Joum.  xxviii.  28. 

VOL.  i.  13 


194 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


predecessor  ; and  relinquished  all  claim  to  the  surplus,  which 
for  the  first  eight  years  of  his  reign  amounted,  upon  an  aver- 
age, to  100,000?.  a year.1 

But  the  king  enjoyed  other  sources  of  income,  indepen- 
other  sources  dent  of  Parliamentary  control.  He  derived  a 
of  revenue,  considerable  amount  from  the  Droits  of  the  Crown 
and  Admiralty,  the  4£  per  cent,  duties,  and  other  casual 
sources  of  revenue  in  England.  He  was  in  possession  of 
the  hereditary  revenues  of  Scotland  ; and  of  a separate  Civil 
List  for  Ireland.  He  retained  the  rich  Duchies  of  Cornwall 
and  Lancaster.  Mr.  Burke  estimated  the  total  annual  in- 
come of  the  Crown,  from  these  various  sources,  at  little  less 
than  a million  ; exclusive  of  the  revenues  of  Hanover,  and 
the  Bishopric  of  Osnaburgh.2  During  this  long  reign,  the 
Droits  of  the  Crown  and  Admiralty,  and  the  casual  revenues, 
which  were  wholly  withdrawn  from  the  cognizance  of  Par- 
liament, amounted  to  the  large  sum  of  12,705,461?. : out  of 
which,  however,  he  voluntarily  contributed  2,600,000?.  to  the 
public  service ; while  5,372,834?.  were  appropriated  as  the 
expenses  of  captors,  and  payments  to  persons  concerned 
in  taking  prizes.  The  surplus  actually  enjoyed  by  the 
Crown,  after  making  these  deductions  amounted,  therefore, 
to  4,732,627?.3  George  III.  also  succeeded  to  172,605?. 
which  the  late  king,  — more  frugal  than  any  prince  since 
Henry  VII.,  — had  saved  out  of  his  Civil  List.4 

But  great  as  were  these  revenues,  the  burdens  on  them 
Charges  on  were  still  greater.  Places  and  pensions  were 
the  Cmi  List.  muitipiie(J,  until  the  royal  income  was  inad- 
equate to  provide  for  them.  On  the  accession  of  George 
III.,  the  greater  part  of  the  late  king’s  household  was  re- 
tained ; and,  at  the  same  time,  numerous  personal  adherents 
of  his  Majesty  were  added  to  the  establishment.6  But  while 

1 1 Geo.  III.  c.  1 ; Rep.  on  Civil  List,  1815. 

2 Present  Discontents,  Burke’s  Works,  ii.  281. 

8 Report  on  the  Civil  List,  1815;  Hans.  Deb.  3d  Ser.,  143. 

4 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  144;  Wraxall's  Mem.  ii.  55. 

5 Walp.  Mem  i.  25. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


195 


the  expenditure  of  the  Civil  List  was  increased,  the  king  and 
his  family  were  living,  not  only  with  economy,  but  even  with 
unkingly  parsimony.  In  1762  he  purchased  Buckingham 
House,  and  settled  it  on  the  queen ; “ St.  James’s  ” according 
to  Horace  Walpole,  “ not  being  a prison  strait  enough.”  1 
Here  he  lived  in  privacy,  attended  only  by  menial  servants, 
and  keeping  up  none  of  the  splendor  of  a Court.2  “ In  all 
this,”  said  Burke,  “ the  people  see  nothing  but  the  operations 
of  parsimony,  attended  with  all  the  consequences  of  pro- 
fusion. Nothing  expended  — nothing  saved.  . . . They 
do  not  believe  it  to  be  hoarded,  nor  perceive  it  to  be 
spent.”  3 

While  practising  this  apparent  economy,  the  king  was  en- 
gaged in  that  struggle  to  increase  the  influence,  parliamenta_ 
and  establish  the  ascendency  of  the  Crown,  which  influence 
has  been  described  elsewhere.4  The  large  expen-  the  civil  List 
diture  of  the  Civil  List  could  not  fail,  therefore, 
to  be  associated  with  the  fidelity  and  subserviency  of  the 
court  party  in  Parliament.  The  Crown  was  either  plun- 
dered by  its  servants ; or  Parliamentary  support  was  pur- 
chased by  places,  pensions,  and  pecuniary  corruption.5 

In  February,  1769,  before  the  king  had  yet  been  nine 
years  upon  the  throne,  the  arrears  of  the  Civil  List 

J r # Debt  upon 

amounted  to  513,511  l. ; and  his  Majesty  was  the  civil  List, 
obliged  to  apply  to  Parliament  to  discharge  them. 

This  demand  was  made  at  an  untimely  moment,  when  the 
people  were  exasperated  by  the  persecution  of  Wilkes,* — 
when  the  policy  of  the  court  was  odious,  and  the  king  him- 

1 Walp.  Mem.  i.  159. 

2 The  king  continued  this  plain  style  of  living  throughout  his  reign.  — 
Wraxall's  Mem.,  i.  8-10.  Mr.  Addington,  writing  to  his  brother,  29th 
Dec.,  1804,  said  he  had  just  partaken  of  the  king’s  dinner,  “ which  con- 
sisted of  mutton  chops  and  pudding.”  — Life  of  Sidmouth , ii.  342.  Simi- 
lar examples  are  to  be  found  in  Twiss’s  Life  of  Lord  Eldon,  and  in  Madame 
D’Arblay’s  Memoirs. 

3 Present  Discontents,  Works,  ii.  280. 

4 See  Chapter  I. 

5 See  Chapter  VI. 


196 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


self  unpopular.  But  if  the  country  was  discontented,  Parlia- 
ment was  held  in  safe  subjection.  Inquiry  was  demanded 
into  the  causes  of  the  debt,  and  explanatory  accounts  were 
sought ; but  all  investigation  being  resisted  by  ministers,  the 
amount  was  granted  without  information.  In  the  following 
year,  motions  for  inquiry  into  the  expenditure  of  the  Civil 
List  were  renewed,  with  no  better  success.1  Lord  Chatham 
avowed  his  conviction  that  the  Civil  List  revenues  were 
expended  in  corrupting  members  of  Parliament ; 2 and  the 
Civil  List  expenditure,  — and  the  withholding  from  Parlia- 
ment such  an  explanation  of  its  causes,  as  had  been  cus- 
tomary in  former  reigns,  — formed  a prominent  topic  in  Mr. 
Burke’s  celebrated  pamphlet  on  “ The  Causes  of  the  Present 
Discontents.” 

But  the  same  causes  of  excessive  expenditure,  — what- 
Further  debt  ever  ^e7  may  have  been, — continued  without  a 
m 1777.  check  ; and  after  the  lapse  of  eight  years,  the  king 
was  again  obliged  to  have  recourse  to  Parliament,  not  only 
to  discharge  a debt  of  618,340/.,  but  to  increase  his  annual 
Civil  List  to  900,000/.  a year.  On  this  occasion,  accounts 
explanatory  of  the  arrears  were  laid  before  Parliament. 
Ministers  no  longer  ventured  to  withhold  them : but  they 
were  not  deemed  satisfactory  by  the  Opposition.  Again  the 
causes  of  increased  expenditure  were  freely  animadverted 
upon  in  Parliament.  The  income  of  the  king  was  compared 
with  that  of  his  predecessors,  — the  large  amount  of  secret- 
service  money,  and  the  increased  Pension  List  were  noticed, 
— and  insinuations  made  of  covert  influence  and  corrup- 
tion.3 But  Parliament  acceded  to  the  demands  of  the 
king.  When  the  speaker,  Sir  Fletcher  Norton,  addressed 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  843,  926  ; Walp.  Mem.  iii.  343;  Rockingham’s  Mem. 
ii.  90,  167.  The  Duke  of  Richmond,  writing  to  Lord  Rockingham  as  to  a 
division  in  the  Lords,  says : “ The  division  of  twenty-six  on  so  courtly  a 
point  as  paying  his  Majesty’s  debts,  and  enabling  him  to  bribe  higher,  is, 
I think,  a very  strong  one.”  — Bock.  Mem.  ii.  92. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  849. 

8 Ibid.,  xix.  103,  160,  187;  Walp.  Mem.  iv.  92. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


197 


the  throne,  on  presenting  the  bill  for  the  royal  assent,  he  said, 
the  Commons  “have  not  only  granted  to  your  Majesty  a 
large  present  supply,  but  also  a very  great  additional  reve- 
nue ; great  beyond  example  ; great  beyond  your  Majesty’s 
highest  expense.”  The  speaker’s  uncourtly  address  became 
the  subject  of  remark  and  censure  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons; but  his  friend  Mr.  Fox,  having  come  to  the  rescue, 
he  was  thanked  for  expressing  with  “just  and  proper  en- 
ergy, the  zeal  of  this  House  for  the  support  of  the  honor 
and  dignity  of  the  Crown,  in  circumstances  of  great  public 
charge.”  1 His  conduct,  however,  was  not  forgiven  by  the 
court ; and  in  the  next  Parliament,  he  was  punished  by  the 
loss  of  the  speaker’s  chair.2 

Promptly  as  these  demands  of  the  Crown  were  met,  they 
yet  excited  lasting  dissatisfaction.  The  public  Debates  u 
expenditure  and  the  national  debt  had  been  pro-  ^9Civil  List> 
digiously  increased  by  the  American  War,  when 
the  abuses  of  the  Civil  List  were  again  brought  under  the 
notice  of  Parliament.  In  1779  the  Duke  of  Richmond 
moved  an  address  to  the  Crown  praying  for  the  reduction 
of  the  Civil  List,  which  was  rejected  by  a majority  of  more 
than  two  to  one.3  But  a few  days  afterwards  Mr.  Burke’s 
Mr.  Burke  gave  notice  of  his  motion  on  Economic  Economic  Re- 
Reform,  with  which  his  name  has  since  been  hon-  form’  178°- 
orably  associated.  On  the  11th  of  February,  1780,  being 
fortified  by  numerous  petitions,  he  propounded  his  elaborate 
scheme.  This  embraced  a considerable  reduction  of  offices, 
a diminution  of  expenditure,  and  improved  administration 
and  accounts  in  the  various  departments  of  the  State  ; and 
in  his  masterly  review,  the  expenditure  of  the  Civil  List 
attracted  a large  share  of  his  scrutiny.  Describing  the  royal 
household,  he  pointed  out  the  social  changes  which  had  taken 
place,  and  the  obsolete  character  of  many  of  the  offices  which 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xix.  227. 

2 Wraxall’s  Mem.  i.  372. 

3 Dec.  7th,  1779;  Pari.  Hist.  xx.  1255. 


198 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


were  still  retained.  “ The  royal  household,”  he  said,  “ has 
lost  all  that  was  stately  and  venerable  in  the  antique  man- 
ners, without  retrenching  anything  of  the  cumbrous  charge, 
of  a gothic  establishment.”  1 Examples  of  profusion  and 
abuse  were  given,  — useless  offices,  and  offices  performed  by 
deputy,  — the  king’s  turnspit  being  a member  of  Parlia- 
ment,2— jobbing,  waste,  and  peculation  in  every  department, 
without  restraint.  He  proposed  the  reduction  and  consoli- 
dation of  offices,  the  diminution  of  the  Pension  List  to 
60,000/.  a year,  and  the  payment  of  all  pensions  at  the  Ex- 
chequer. 

Mr.  Burke  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  five  bills  to  carry 
out  these  various  objects : but  his  Establishment  Bill 3 was 
the  only  one  which  was  discussed  in  that  session.  It  was 
read  a second  time,  and  several  of  its  provisions  were  dis- 
cussed in  committee ; but  it  was  ultimately  defeated  by  the 
Government.4  The  discussions,  however,  led  to  a proposi- 
tion from  Lord  North,  for  a Commission  of  Public  Accounts. 

In  the  following  year  Mr.  Burke  resumed  his  efforts,  and 
Mr.  Burke’s  again  obtained  leave  to  bring  in  his  Establishment 
Bill.  In  advocating  this  measure  he  was  boldly 
supported  by  young  William  Pitt,  who  then  first 
offered  himself  to  the  notice  of  Parliament.  The  Bill  was 
lost  on  the  second  reading.5 

But  a sudden  change  soon  took  place  in  the  prospects  of 
Measures  of  this  question.  Lord  Rockingham’s  administration 
ham^Minis-2"  acceded  to  office,  pledged  to  economic  reform,  and 
try,  1782.  resolved  to  carry  it  into  effect.  Lord  Rocking- 
ham, in  laying  his  plan  before  the  king,  explained  “ that  not 
a single  article  of  the  expense  to  be  retrenched  touches  any- 
thing whatsoever  which  is  personal  to  your  Majesty,  or  to 


Establish- 
ment Bill 
1781. 


1 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  30. 

2 Ibid.  33,  and  Lord  Talbot’s  Speech  in  1777 ; Ibid.  xix.  176. 

8 See  Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  Ill,  where  it  is  printed  at  length. 

4 Ibid.  xxi.  714. 

6 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  1292.  Wraxall’s  Mem.  ii.  333. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


199 


your  Majesty’s  royal  family,  or  which  in  the  least  contributes 
to  the  splendor  of  your  court and  that  in  fact  he  only  in- 
tended to  reduce  the  patronage  and  influence  of  the  minis- 
ters.1 On  the  15th  April,  1782,  a message  from  the  king 
was  sent  to  both  Houses,  recommending  economy  in  all 
branches  of  the  public  expenditure,  and  stating  that  he  had 
already  considered  the  reform  and  regulation  of  his  civil  es- 
tablishment. Well  might  Mr.  Burke  congratulate  the  House 
of  Commons  and  the  country  on  so  favorable  a change  in 
the  policy  of  the  Government,  and  on  the  attitude  of  the 
king  towards  his  people.  In  both  Houses  this  communica- 
tion was  cordially  received  and  acknowledged.2  It  was  soon 
followed  by  another,  which  though  not  so  satisfactory,  at 
least  afforded  convincing  proof  of  the  necessity  of  that  econ- 
omy which  had  been  already  recommended. 

The  king  was  now  obliged  to  announce  to  Parliament 
another  debt  upon  his  Civil  List ; but  instead  of  civil  List 
proposing  that  it  should  be  discharged,  as  on  pre-  Debt?  1/82' 
vious  occasions,  out  of  the  general  revenues  of  the  state,  he 
intimated  that  its  liquidation  was  to  be  secured  by  intended 
reductions  of  the  Civil  List  establishment.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  recent  additions  to  the  Civil  List,  the  arrears  now 
amounted  to  295,877Z. ; and  the  proposed  savings,  instead 
of  being  available  either  to  the  king  or  to  the  country,  would 
thus  become  immediately  mortgaged  for  the  payment  of  a 
debt,  by  annual  instalments. 

The  Civil  List  Act  of  Lord  Rockingham,  though  falling 
short  of  Mr.  Burke’s  original  proposal,  was  never-  Civil  List  Act 
theless  a considerable  measure.  Many  useless  of  1782, 
offices  were  abolished,  restraints  were  imposed  upon  the 
issue  of  secret-service  money,  the  Pension  List  was  dimin- 
ished, and  securities  were  provided  for  a more  effectual 
supervision  of  the  royal  expenditure.  And  now,  for  the 
first  time,  the  Civil  List  expenditure  was  divided  into 

1 Lord  Rockingham’s  Letter  to  the  King.  — Roclc.  Mem.  ii.  477. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1269.  WraxaU’s  Mem.  43-47,  54. 


200 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


classes,  eight  in  number,  which  led  to  more  important  changes 
hereafter.1 

But  debt  continued  to  be  the  normal  condition  of  the 
Civil  List  throughout  the  reign  of  George  III. 

Subsequent  # # # 

debts  in  this  Again  and  again  applications  were  renewed  to 
Parliament ; and  the  debts  discharged  at  different 
periods  after  1782,  exceeded  2,300,000/.  From  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  this  reign,  the  several  arrears  paid  off 
by  Parliament,  exclusive  of  the  debt  of  300,000/.  charged 
on  the  Civil  List  in  1782,  amounted  to  3,398,000/.2 

In  defence  of  these  continued  excesses  it  was  urged,  that 
Surplus  of  ^hcy  were  more  than  defrayed  by  the  surplus  of 
hereditary  the  hereditary  revenues,  which  the  king  had  sur- 

rGYGDUGS.  * 

rendered;  and  which,  in  1815,  exceeded  by  up- 
wards of  6,000,000/.  the  entire  expenditure  of  the  Civil 
List  since  the  accession  of  the  king,  — including  all  the 
debts  which  had  been  paid  off  by  Parliament,  and  the  charges 
from  which  the  Civil  List  had  been  relieved.3 

Meanwhile  the  Civil  List  continued  to  comprise  charges 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  personal  comfort 
moved  from  and  dignity  of  the  sovereign,  — the  salaries  of 
judges,  ambassadors,  and  other  officers  of  state, — 
annuities  to  members  of  the  royal  family,  and  pensions 


1 22  Geo.  III.  c.  82 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1395 ; Ibid,  xxiii.  121. 


2 In  1769 

£513,511 

1777 

618,340 

1784 

60,000 

1786 

210,000 

1802 

990,053 

1804 

591,842 

1805 

10,458 

1814 

118,857 

1814 

100,000  (extra  expenses.) 

1816 

, *■*  , 

185,000 

£3,398,061 

Report  on  Civil  List , 1815,  p.  4;  Speech  of  Mr.  Spring  Rice,  Nov.  23d, 
1837.  — Hansard's  Debates , 3d  Ser.,  xxxix.  144. 

8 Report  on  Civil  List,  1815,  p.  4. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


201 


granted  for  public  services,  — all  of  which  were  more  fairly 
chargeable  to  the  state  revenues,  than  to  the  Civil  List  of  the 
Crown.  From  many  of  these  charges  the  Civil  List  was, 
from  time  to  time,  relieved,  — amounting,  between  the  ac- 
cession of  George  III.  and  1815,  to  9,5 61,39 61. 1 

On  the  expiration  of  the  first  year  of  the  Regency,  in 
1812,  the  Civil  List  was  increased  by  70,000/.  a Regulation  of 
year,  and  a special  grant  of  100,000/.  was  voted  ofetheRe-LlSt 
to  the  Prince  Regent.2  In  1816  the  Civil  List  gency* 
was  settled  at  1,083,727/.,  including  the  establishment  of 
the  king;  and  its  expenditure  was,  at  the  same  time,  sub- 
jected to  further  regulation.  It  was  relieved  from  some  of 
the  annuities  to  the  royal  family  : the  payments  on  account 
of  the  several  classes  of  expenditure  were  defined  and  con- 
trolled ; and  the  expenses  of  the  royal  household  were  sub- 
jected to  the  supervision  and  audit  of  a treasury  officer,  the 
auditor  of  the  Civil  List.3 

King  George  IV.,  on  his  accession,  expected  a larger 
Civil  List  than  he  had  enjoyed  as  Prince  Regent ; L.gt  ^ 
but  yielding  to  the  persuasion  and  remonstrances  accession  of 

...  1 George  IV. 

of  his  ministers,  he  stated  in  his  speech  from  the 
throne,  that  so  far  from  desiring  any  arrangement  which 
would  lead  to  the  imposition  of  new  burdens  upon  his  peo- 
ple, he  had  no  wish  to  alter  the  settlement  adopted  by  Par- 
liament in  181 6.4 

The  Civil  List  being  now  free  from  the  expenses  of  the 
late  king,  was  fixed  by  Parliament  at  845,727/. 

• Other  tgvg- 

But  during  the  whole  of  this  reign  the  king  en-  nues  of  the 
joyed,  in  addition  to  this  income,  the  hereditary  Crown' 
revenues  of  Scotland,  amounting  on  an  average  to  109,000/., 

1 Report  on  Civil  List,  1815,  p.  5. 

2 52  Geo.  III.  c.  6,  7 ; Hans.  Deb.  1st  Ser.  xxi.  151,  &c. 

3 56  Geo.  III.  c.  46. 

4 Twiss’s  Life  of  Eldon,  ii.  363;  Hansard’s  Debates,  2d  Ser.,  i.  11. 

This  concession,  “if  report  be  true,  was  obtained  by  nothing  but  the 
most  determined  refusal  of  the  Ministers  to  do  more.”  — Mr.  T.  Grenville 
to  the  Marquis  of  Buckingham , May  4th,  1820. 


202 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


and  the  Civil  List  for  Ireland  of  250,000 /.  He  also  re- 
ceived the  Droits  of  the  Crown  and  Admiralty,  the  4J  per 
cent,  duties,  the  West  India  duties,  and  other  casual  rev- 
enues, which  were  still  vested  in  the  Crown,  and  indepen- 
dent of  Parliament.1 

King  William  IV.,  on  his  accession,  for  the  first  time  sur- 
rendered the  interest  of  the  Crown  in  all  these 
william  iv'  sources  °f  revenue,  and  accepted  a Civil  List  of 
510,000/.  The  future  expenditure  of  this  amount 
was  divided  into  five  different  classes,  to  each  of  which  a 
specific  annual  sum  was  appropriated,  including  a Pension 
List  of  75,000/.  At  the  same  time,  the  Civil  List  was  still 
further  relieved  from  charges,  which  more  properly  belonged 
to  the  civil  government  of  the  State.  These  charges  included 
judicial  salaries,  — which  had  been  paid  partly  out  of  the 
Civil  List,  partly  out  of  the  Consolidated  Fund,  and  partly 
out  of  the  fees  of  the  Courts,  — the  salaries  and  pensions  of 
the  diplomatic  service,  — and  numerous  miscellaneous  ex- 
penses.2 

These  arrangements  were  not  concluded  until  the  accounts 
of  the  Civil  List  expenditure  had  been  referred  to  a select 
committee  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  freely  investi- 
gated. The  Wellington  ministry  resisted  this  investigation, 
and  fell : when  the  settlement  of  the  Civil  List  was  left  to 
the  Whig  ministry  of  Lord  Grey.3  The  committee,  in  their 
inquiries,  not  thinking  it  consistent  with  the  respect  due  to 
his  Majesty  to  scrutinize  the  details  of  his  domestic  house- 
hold, nevertheless  recommended  several  reductions  in  the 
salaries  of  the  officers  of  state,  amounting  in  the  aggregate 
to  11,529/.4  The  king,  however,  remonstrated  with  his 
ministers  against  the  proposed  reduction,  saying : — “If  the 
people,  according  to  the  new  (reform)  bill,  are  really  to  gov- 

1 Report  on  Civil  Government  Charges,  1831 ; 1 Geo.  IV.  c.  1. 

2 Report  on  Civil  Government  Charges,  1831 ; Report  on  Civil  List 
Charges,  1833. 

3 Hans.  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  i.  429,  526. 

4 Report  on  the  Civil  List  Accounts,  March  21st,  1831. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


203 


era  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  House  of  Commons  is 
to  decide  upon  the  amount  of  salary  I am  to  give  to  my 
servants,  then  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  will  in  reality 
pass  to  the  people,  and  the  monarchy  cannot  exist.”  The 
ministers  yielded  to  this  remonstrance,  and  induced  the 
House  of  Commons  to  restore  the  Civil  List  to  the  amount 
originally  proposed.1 

The  Civil  List  of  Queen  Victoria  wras  settled  on  the 
same  principles  as  that  of  William  IV.,  and  Civil  List  of 
amounted  to  385,000/. : the  only  material  varia-  Her  MaJesty- 
tion  being  that  in  lieu  of  the  Pension  List  of  75,000/.,  her 
Majesty  was  empowered  to  grant  pensions  annually  to  the 
extent  of  1,200/.  The  Crown  was  thus  finally  restricted  to 
a definite  annuity  for  the  support  of  its  dignity,  and  for  the 
personal  comfort  of  the  sovereign.2 

It  may  be  added,  as  at  once  a proof  of  the  wisdom  of 
these  arrangements,  and  of  the  improved  admin-  No  debts  up_ 
istration  of  our  later  sovereigns,  that  neither  in  t during 
the  reign  of  Her  Most  Gracious  Majesty,  nor  in  three  reigns, 
the  reigns  of  George  IV.  and  William  IV.,  has  any  applica- 
tion been  made  to  Parliament  for  the  discharge  of  debts 
upon  the  Civil  List.3 

While  the  Civil  List  has  been  diminished  in  amount,  its 
relief  from  charges  with  which  it  had  formerly  Importance 
been  encumbered  has  placed  it  beyond  the  reach  of  ^vri®ll^ifcng 
misconstruction.  The  Crown  repudiates  the  indi-  from  extrane- 

. . n . . . r • i • ous  charges. 

rect  influences  exercised  in  former  reigns,  and  is 
free  from  imputations  of  corruption.  And  the  continual  in- 
crease of  the  civil  charges  of  the  Government,  which  was 
formerly  a reproach  to  the  Crown,  is  now  a matter  for 
which  the  House  of  Commons  is  alone  responsible.  In  this, 
as  in  other  examples  of  constitutional  progress,  apparent 

1 Roebuck’s  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  159 ; Hansard’s  Debates,  3d 
Ser.,  iii.  959. 

2 Hansard’s  Debates,  xxxix.  137,  et  seq. 

3 Rep.  1837-8,  on  the  Civil  List. 


204 


THE  CIVIL  LIST. 


encroachments  upon  the  Crown  have  but  added  to  its  true 
dignity,  and  conciliated,  more  than  ever,  the  confidence  and 
affections  of  the  people. 

Until  the  accession  of  her  Majesty,  every  previous  sover- 
Revenues  of  eign  °f  her  royal  house  had  also  enjoyed  the  rev- 
Hanover.  enue  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hanover,  which  was  now 
detached  from  the  Crown  of  England.  Former  sovereigns 
had  also  inherited  considerable  personal  property  from  their 
predecessors : but  her  Majesty  succeeded  to  none  whatever. 
„ The  Crown,  however,  still  retains  the  revenues 

Duchies  of  \ 

Lancaster  of  the  Duchies  of  Lancaster  and  Cornwall.  The 

and  Cornwall.  „ , J n . 

former  are  the  property  or  the  reigning  sovereign ; 
the  latter  the  independent  inheritance  of  the  Prince  of  Wales, 
as  Duke  of  Cornwall.  The  estates  of  both  these  duchies  have 
been  largely  augmented  by  judicious  management,  and  by 
vigilant  attention  to  the  interests  of  the  Crown. 

At  the  commencement  of  her  Majesty’s  reign,  the  gross 
revenue  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  amounted  to 

Revenue  of  J 

the  Duchy  of  23,038 /.,  and  the  charges  to  14,126/.,  leaving  a 
net  revenue  of  no  more  than  8,912 /.  In  1859  the 
gross  revenue  had  increased  to  45,349 /.,  and  the  net  reve- 
nue to  3 1,349/.,  of  which  25,000/.  were  paid  to  her  Majesty’s 
Privy  Purse.1 

When  George,  Prince  of  Wales,  came  of  age  in  1783,  the 
income  of  the  Duchy  of  Cornwall  was  less  than 

Revenue  of  J . 

the  Duchy  of  13,000/.  a year.  On  the  accession  of  her  Majesty 

Cornwall.  , . ,~0  . rn7  n ,, 

the  gross  income  was  28,45  b/.,  and  the  payments 
were  12,670/.,  leaving  a net  income  of  15,786/.  In  1859, 
the  gross  income  had  increased  to  63,704/.,  and  the  net  reve- 
nue to  50,777/. ; of  which  no  less  than  40,785/.  were  paid 
over  to  the  trustees  and  treasurer  of  his  Royal  Highness  the 
Prince  of  Wales.2  And  out  of  this  ample  revenue,  accumu- 
lations exceeding  half  a million,  are  said  to  have  been  invested 
for  the  future  benefit  of  his  Royal  Highness. 


1 Pari.  Papers,  1837-8,  (665)  ; 1860,  (98). 

2 Pari.  Papers,  1837-8,  (665);  1860,  (13). 


PRIVATE  PROPERTY  OF  THE  CROWN. 


205 


In  addition  to  these  public  revenues,  the  rights  of  the 
Crown  to  its  own  private  property  have  been  se-  . 

1 r l j Private  prop- 

cured.  The  alienation  of  the  land  revenues  of  erty  of  the 
the  Crown  having  been  restrained  by  the  1st  Anne,  soverei°ns‘ 
a doubt  subsequently  arose,  whether  the  restrictions  of  that 
Act  extended  to  the  private  property  of  the  sovereign,  ac- 
quired by  purchase,  gift,  or  devise,  or  by  descent,  from  per- 
sons not  being  kings  or  queens  of  the  realm.  But  such 
restrictions  being  without  any  color  of  justice,  an  Act  was 
passed,  in  1800,  declaring  that  property  so  acquired,  could 
be  disposed  of  like  the  property  of  subjects.1  On  the  acces- 
sion of  George  IV.,  however,  doubts  were  suggested  whether 
this  Act  applied  to  property  acquired,  by  the  reigning  sov- 
ereign, before  he  had  succeeded  to  the  throne,  which  were 
set  at  rest  by  statute  in  1823.2 

While  the  Civil  List  has  been  ample  for  the  support  of  the 
personal  dignity  of  the  Crown,  Parliament  has 
also  provided  liberally  for  the  maintenance  of  the  the  royal  fam- 
various  members  of  the  royal  family.  A separate  lly' 
annuity  to  the  Queen  Consort,  with  a large  dowry  in  case  of 
the  death  of  the  king,  — annuities  to  the  brothers,  sisters,  and 
other  relatives  of  his  Majesty,  — establishments  for  each  of 
his  children  on  coming  of  age,  and  even  allowances  for  their 
education  and  maintenance,  — marriage  portions  for  prin- 
cesses of  the  royal  house,  — such  are  the  claims  which  have 
been  made  upon  the  liberality  of  Parliament,  in  addition  to 
the  Civil  List.  To  these  must  be  added,  in  the  reign  of 
George  III.,  the  debts  of  the  Prince  of  Wales. 

The  prince  came  of  age  in  1783,  — a time  ill-suited  for 
heavy  demands  upon  the  public  purse.  The  peo-  Debtg  of  the 
pie  were  still  suffering  under  the  accumulated  bur-  Prince  of 
dens  of  the  American  War ; and  the  abuses  of 
the  Civil  List  had  recently  undergone  a rude  exposure.  But 
the  prince’s  Whig  friends  in  the  Coalition  Ministry,  overlook- 

1 39  & 40  Geo.  III.  c.  88. 

2 4 Geo.  IV.  c.  18  ; Hansard’s  Debates,  2d  Ser.,  viii.  509,  651. 


206 


PROVISION  FOR  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY. 


ing  these  considerations,  proposed  a settlement  of  100,000/.  a 
year.  They  were  glad  to  have  this  opportunity  of  strength- 
ening their  political  connection  with  the  heir-apparent.  But 
the  king  was  more  sensible  than  they,  of  the  objections  to 
such  a proposal  at  that  time  ; and  being  tenacious  of  his  own 
power,  — loving  his  son  but  little,  and  hating  his  ministers 
very  much,  — he  declined  an  arrangement  which  would  have 
secured  the  independence  of  the  prince,  and  drawn  him  still 
more  closely  to  the  party  most  obnoxious  to  himself.  He 
agreed,  therefore,  to  make  the  prince  an  allowance  of  50,000/. 
a year  out  of  his  Civil  List,  which  had  already  proved  un- 
equal to  his  own  expenditure,  and  limited  his  demand  upon 
Parliament  to  an  outfit  of  GOjOOOZ.1  To  a prudent  prince 
such  an  allowance  would  have  been  ample ; to  the  spend- 
thrift and  the  gamester  it  was  a pittance.  The  prince  was 
soon  in  difficulties  ; and  his  “ debts  of  honor  ” to  the  blacklegs 
of  Newmarket,  and  the  sharpers  of  St.  James’s,  left  little  for 
the  payment  of  the  royal  tradesmen.  On  the  revision  of  the 
Civil  List  in  1786,  another  effort  was  made  by  the  prince’s 
friends  to  obtain  for  him  a more  liberal  settlement ; but  Mr. 
Pitt  was  cold,  and  the  king  inexorable.  The  prince  broke 
up  his  establishment,  yet  failed  to  pay  his  debts. 

In  1787  his  affairs  had  become  desperate,  when  the  heir- 
apparent  was  saved  from  ruin  by  the  friendly  intervention  of 
a London  alderman.  Mr.  Alderman  Newnham  having  given 
notice,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  of  an  address  to  the  king 
on  the  subject  of  the  prince’s  debts,  and  being  supported  by 
the  friends  of  his  Royal  Highness,  the  king  thought  it  better 
to  arrange  a compromise.  This  resulted  in  the  addition  of 
10,000/.  a year  to  the  income  of  the  prince  out  of  the  Civil 
List;  and  the  voting  of  161,000/.  for  the  payment  of  his 
debts,  and  20,000/.  for  the  buildings  at  Carlton  House.2  No 

1 25th  Jane,  1783;  Pari.  Hist,  xxiii.  1030;  Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  and 
Times  of  Fox,  ii.  8 ; Lord  Auckland’s  Cor.  i.  54. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  1010,  1048,  1064,  1207;  Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  ii. 
260;  Lord  Auckland’s  Cor.  i.  415,  417. 


THE  CIVIL  LIST, 


207 


less  than  63,700/.  were  afterwards  granted  by  Parliament, 
at  different  times,  for  the  completion  of  this  costly  palace,1 
which,  after  being  the  scene  of  tinsel  splendor  and  bad  taste 
for  little  more  than  twenty:five  years,  was  razed  to  the  ground 
to  make  room  for  metropolitan  improvements. 

The  king  assured  the  House  of  Commons  that  the  prince 
had  promised  to  confine  his  future  expenses  within  his  in- 
come ; yet  so  little  were  these  good  intentions  carried  out, 
that  in  1792  his  Poyal  Highness  confessed  to  Lord  Malmes- 
bury that  his  debts  then  amounted  to  370, 000/.2  In  1795 
they  had  increased  to  the  extraordinary  sum  of  650,000/. ; 
when  he  was  extricated  from  these  embarrassments,  by  his 
ill-fated  marriage  with  Caroline  of  Brunswick.  To  propose 
a grant  for  the  payment  of  these  debts,  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion ; but  an  additional  annuity  of  65,000/.  was  settled  upon 
him,  of  which  nearly  the  whole  was  appropriated,  for  many 
years,  to  the  gradual  discharge  of  his  incumbrances.3  These 
were  ultimately  paid  off ; and  the  spendthrift  prince,  — though 
still  fond  of  building  and  enlarging  palaces  at  the  public  ex- 
pense, — learned,  in  his  old  age,  to  husband  his  own  resour- 
ces, with  the  caution  of  a miser. 

Parliament  has  since  cheerfully  granted  every  suitable 
provision  for  members  of  the  royal  family  : but  its  liberality 
has  not  been  discredited  by  any  further  application  for  the 
payment  of  their  debts. 

We  have  seen  that  the  income  arising  from  the  land  reve- 
nues of  the  Crown  was  surrendered  to  the  state,  Mismanage- 
by  George  III.  in  exchange  for  a Civil  List ; but  of  the 

for  a long  time  the  state  was  deprived,  by  mis-  on  behalf  of 
_ . n J the  public- 

management,  ot  the  greater  part  of  the  benefit  to 

which  it  was  entitled.  Leases  were  improvidently,  if  not 

corruptly,  granted,  — often  without  any  survey  of  the  prop- 

1 Viz.,  35,000?.  in  1789,  3,500?.  in  1791,  and  27,500?.  in  1795. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury’s  Cor.  ii.  415,  418. 

3 King’s  Message,  April  27th,  1795 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxxi.  1464, 1496 ; Ibid. 
xxxii.  90,  135;  35  Geo.  III.  c.  129. 


208 


MANAGEMENT  OF  LAND  REVENUES. 


erty,  and  even  without  a copy  or  counterpart  of  the  lease 
being  retained  by  the  Surveyor- General,  on  behalf  of  the 
Crown : renewals  were  conceded  at  the  pleasure  of  the  ten- 
ants ; while  extravagant  fees,  payable  at  public  offices,  in- 
stead of  being  eharged  to  the  tenants,  were  deducted  from  the 
fines,  and  became  a grievous  burden  upon  the  revenues  of  the 
Crown.  At  least  seven  eighths  of  the  value  of  the  land  were 
received  in  the  shape  of  fines,  and  one  eighth  only  in  rent ; and 
these  fines,  again,  were  computed  at  high  rates  of  interest,  by 
which  the  payments  to  the  Crown  were  further  diminished. 

Encroachments  and  waste  were  permitted  upon  the  royal 
demesnes,  with  scarcely  a check.  Such  mismanagement, 
however,  was  not  due  to  any  want  of  officers,  appointed  to 
guard  the  public  interests.  On  the  contrary,  their  very 
number  served  to  facilitate  frauds  and  evasions.  Instead  of 
being  a check  upon  one  another,  these  officers  acted  inde- 
pendently ; and  their  ignorance,  incapacity,  and  neglect  went 
far  to  ruin  the  property  under  their  charge.  As  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  system  it  may  be  stated,  that  the  land-tax  was 
frequently  allowed  twice  over  to  lessees ; from  which  error 
alone,  a loss  was  sustained  of  upwards  of  fifteen  hundred 
pounds  a year.  Even  without  mismanagement,  the  wide 
dispersion  of  the  estates  of  the  Crown  multiplied  the  charges 
of  superintendence  and  administration. 

From  these  various  causes  the  noble  estates  of  the  Crown, 
for  the  first  twenty-five  years  of  the  reign  of  George  III. 
produced  an  average  net  revenue  little  exceeding  six  thou- 
sand pounds  a year.1  Some  of  these  abuses  were  exposed 
by  Mr.  Burke  in  1780,  who  suggested  as  a remedy,  a gen- 
eral sale  of  the  Crown  lands.2  In  1786  the  king  sent 
message  to  Parliament,  by  the  advice  of  Mr.  Pitt,  recom- 
mending an  inquiry  into  the  condition  of  the  woods,  forests, 
and  land  revenues  of  the  Crown  ; and  a commission  was  ac- 

1 Reports  of  Commissioners  of  Inquiry  into  the  Woods,  Forests,  and 
Land  Revenues,  under  Act  26  Geo.  III.  c.  87. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  26. 


MANAGEMENT  OF  LAND  REVENUES. 


209 


cordingly  appointed  by  Act,  to  make  that  inquiry,  and  to 
suggest  improvements  in  the  system  of  management.1  The 
recommendations  of  this  commission  led  to  the  passing  of  an 
Act  in  1794,  by  which  an  improved  administration  of  the 
land  revenues  was  introduced ; 2 and  means  were  taken  for 
making  them  more  productive.  This  commission  had  re- 
ported that,  in  their  opinion,  the  estates  which  had  hitherto 
yielded  so  insignificant  a revenue  might,  under  improved 
management,  eventually  produce  no  less  than  400,0007  a 
year.  Existing  interests  postponed  for  a time  the  realization 
of  so  sanguine  an  estimate:  but  in  1798  the  Crown  lands 
were  valued  at  201,2507  a year:3  in  1812  they  were  valued 
at  288,1607: 4 in  1820  they  actually  yielded  114,8527;  in 
1880,  they  produced  873,7707;  and  in  the  year  ending  31st 
March,  1860,  they  returned  an  income  of  416,530Z.5 

But  when  the  land  revenues  of  the  Crown  were  at  length 

o 

becoming  nearly  an  equivalent  for  the  Civil  List,  Appropria. 
a considerable  proportion  of  the  income  was  still  tion  of  the 

■ proceeds  of 

diverted  from  the  Exchequer.  The  land  reve-  the  land  rev- 
nues,  and  the  woods  and  forests,  were  originally 
managed,  each  by  a Surveyor- General ; but  in  1810  the 
functions  of  these  two  offices  were  combined  in  a Commission 
of  Woods,  Forests,  and  Land  Revenues.6  In  1832  the 
superintendence  of  public  works  was  added  to  the  duties  of 
this  commission ; 7 when  it  soon  became  evident  that  what 
they  received  with  one  hand,  they  were  too  ready  to  pay  over 
to  the  other.  The  revenue  derived  from  the  property  of  the 
Crown,  was  applied  with  too  much  facility,  to  the  execution 
of  public  works  and  improvements : the  Exchequer  was  de- 
prived of  the  funds  which  were  due  to  it,  in  exchange  for 
the  Civil  List ; and  Parliament  was  denied  its  proper  con- 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  186,  202. 

2 34  Geo.  III.  c.  75. 

3 Report  of  Surveyor-General,  Com.  Journ.  liii.  187. 

4 1st  Report  of  Comm,  of  Woods  and  Forests,  1812. 

5 Finance  Accounts,  1860. 

6 50  Geo.  III.  c.  65.  7 2 & 3 Will.  IV.  c.  1. 

VOL.  i.  14 


210 


CIVIL  LIST  PENSIONS. 


trol  over  an  important  branch  of  the  public  expenditure. 
To  arrest  this  evil  another  administrative  change  was  neces- 
sary; and  in  1851  the  departments  of  Woods  and  Forests 
and  of  Public  Works  were  again  entirely  separated.1  Hence, 
whatever  may  be  the  net  proceeds  of  the  property  of  the 
Crown,  they  form  part  of  the  public  revenue  ; and  whatever 
sums  may  be  needed  for  public  works,  are  voted  by  Parlia- 
ment out  of  the  general  income  of  the  state. 

A very  important  part  of  the  expenditure  of  the  Civil  List 
Civil  List  has  been  caused,  in  every  reign  but  the  present, 
Pensions.  py  the  payment  of  pensions.  The  grant  of  pen- 
sions by  the  Crown  has  so  often  been  the  subject  of  political 
discussion,  that  a brief  explanation  of  the  law  and  usage  by 
which  they  were  granted,  and  the  funds  from  which  they 
were  payable,  will  not  be  devoid  of  constitutional  interest. 

Prior  to  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  the  Crown  had  ex- 
„ . . ..  ercised  the  right  of  charging  its  hereditary  reve- 
upon  grants  nues  with  pensions  and  annuities:  and  it  had  been 

of  pensions  A 

charged  upon  held  that  the  king  had  power,  in  law,  to  bind  his 
successors.2  But  on  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne, 
in  1701,  when  alienations  of  crown  lands  were  for  the  first 
time  restrained  by  Parliament,3  it  was  also  provided  that  no 
portion  of  the  hereditary  revenues  4 could  be  alienated  for 
any  term,  longer  than  the  life  of  the  reigning  king.5 

This  act,  however,  being  passed  before  the  union  with 
Scotland,  did  not  extend  to  the  hereditary  reve- 

Pensions  on  _ „ . , __  . 

the  heredita-  nues  of  the  Scottish  crown.  Nor  was  any  similar 
ry  revenues.  passed  in  the  Parliament  of  Ireland,  restrain- 

ing grants  from  the  hereditary  revenues  of  Ireland : neither 


1 14  & 15  Viet.  c.  41. 

2 Bankers’  Case,  1691;  State  Trials,  xiv.  3-43. 

8 Supra,  p.  189. 

4 The  hereditary  revenues  specified  in  the  Act  were  these : the  hered- 
itary duties  on  beer,  ale,  or  other  liquors,  the  post-office,  first-fruits  and 
tenths,  fines  on  writs,  post  fines,  wine  licenses,  sheriffs’  processes  and  com- 
positions, and  seizures  of  uncustomed  and  prohibited  goods. 

6 1 Anne,  st.  1,  c.  7. 


CIVIL  LIST  PENSIONS. 


211 


did  the  Act  of  Anne  extend  to  the  4J  per  cent,  duties.  Sub- 
sequently to  this  Act,  pensions  on  the  hereditary  revenues 
of  the  Crown  in  England  could  only  be  granted  during  the 
life  of  the  reigning  sovereign ; but  were  practically  re- 
granted at  the  commencement  of  every  reign.  But  pensions 
charged  on  the  hereditary  revenues  of  Scotland  and  Ireland, 
and  on  the  4£  per  cent,  duties,  continued  to  be  granted  for 
the  lives  of  the  grantees. 

On  the  accession  of  George  III.,  the  larger  branches  of 
the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown  in  England  „ . 

J ° Pensions  on 

being  surrendered  in  exchange  for  a fixed  Civil  the  civil  List 

-r.  n . ° of  George  III. 

List,  the  pensions  which  had  previously  been  paid 
out  of  the  hereditary  revenues,  were  henceforth  paid  out  of 
the  Civil  List.  There  was  no  limit  to  the  amount  of  the 
pensions  so  long  as  the  Civil  List  could  meet  the  demand ; 
and  no  principle  by  which  the  grant  of  them  was  regulated, 
but  the  discretion  of  the  Crown  and  its  advisers. 

No  branch  of  the  public  expenditure  was  regarded  with 
so  much  jealousy,  as  that  arising  out  of  the  unre- 

_ J y . P _ , ^ Jealousy  of 

stncted  power  ot  granting  pensions  by  the  Crown,  the  Pension 

Not  only  did  it  involve  a serious  public  burden, 

— being  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the  Civil  List  debts, 

— but  it  increased  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  and  impaired 
the  independence  of  Parliament.  Mr.  Burke,  in  bringing 
forward  his  scheme  of  economical  reform  in  1780,  dwelt 
much  on  the  excessive  amount  of  the  Pension  List,  and  the 
absence  of  proper  regulations  ; and  particularly  adverted  to 
a custom  which  then  prevailed,  of  granting  pensions  on  a 
private  list,  during  pleasure,  by  which  dangerous  corruption 
might  be  practised.  Mr.  Burke  proposed  that  the  English 
Pension  List  should  be  gradually  reduced  to  60,000/.,  and 
that  pensions  should  be  restricted  to  the  reward  of  merit, 
and  “ real  public  charity ; ” extraordinary  cases  being  in 
future  provided  for  by  an  address  of  either  house  of  Par- 
liament. 

By  the  Civil  List  Act  of  the  Rockingham  administration 


212 


CIVIL  LIST  PENSIONS. 


in  1782, 1 the  power  of  granting  pensions  was  considerably 
Restriction  limited.  It  was  provided  that  until  the  Pension 
grant ^ of  pen-  List  should  be  reduced  to  90,000/.,  no  pension 
sions  in  1782.  above  300/.  a year  should  be  granted : that  the 
whole  amount  of  pensions  bestowed  in  any  year  should  not 
exceed  600/.,  a list  of  which  was  directed  to  be  laid  before 
Parliament : that  the  entire  Pension  List  should  afterwards 
be  restricted  to  95,000/. ; and  that  no  pension  to  any  one 
person  should  exceed  1200/.  This  Act  fully  recognized  the 
principles  of  Mr.  Burke’s  plan  : it  affirmed  almost  in  his 
very  words,  that  by  the  usage  of  granting  secret  pensions 
during  pleasure,  “ secret  and  dangerous  corruption  may 
hereafter  be  practised  ; ” and  it  directed  that  in  future  all 
pensions  should  be  paid  at  the  Exchequer.  It  further  ac- 
knowledged the  principle  that  pensions  ought  to  be  granted 
for  two  causes  only : — viz.  as  a royal  bounty  for  persons 
in  distress,  or  as  a reward  for  desert. 

So  far,  therefore,  the  English  Pension  List  was  regulated, 
Irish  Pension  and  made  subject  to  Parliamentary  control.  But 
Llst*  the  Crown  still  retained  ample  means,  from  other 

sources,  of  rewarding  political  or  personal  services.  The 
hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown,  in  Ireland,  amounting  to 
the  net  sum  of  275,102/.,  were  still  at  the  sole  disposal  of 
the  Crown,  and  were  even  alienable,  so  as  to  bind  future 
sovereigns.  It  is  natural  that  this  convenient  fund  should 
have  been  largely  charged  with  pensions.  They  had  been 
granted  in  every  form,  — during  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown, 
— for  the  life  of  the  sovereign, — for  terms  of  years,  — for 
the  life  of  the  grantee,  — and  for  several  lives  in  being,  or 
in  reversion.  As  there  was  no  control  whatever  over  such 
grants,  the  Pension  List  was  continually  increasing.  Com- 
plaints had  long  been  made  of  the  reckless  prodigality  of 
the  Crown  in  bestowing  pensions;  and  so  far  back  as  1757, 
the  Irish  House  of  Commons  had  unanimously  resolved 
“ that  the  granting  of  so  much  of  the  public  revenue  in  pen- 
i 22  Geo.  III.  c.  82. 


CIVIL  LIST  PENSIONS. 


213 


sions  is  an  improvident  disposition  of  the  revenue,  an  injury 
to  the  Crown,  and  detrimental  to  the  people.”  Yet  the 
Pension  List,  which  in  1757  had  amounted  to  40,000/.,  was 
trebled  in  the  first  thirty  years  of  George  III. ; and,  in 
1793,  had  reached  the  prodigious  sum  of  124,000/.  But 
the  abuse  had  now  worked  itself  out,  and  could  be  tolerated 
no  longer.  In  that  year,  therefore,  the  Government  itself 
proposed  a change,  which  was  readily  adopted  by  the  Irish 
Parliament.1  The  hereditary  revenues  were  surrendered  in 
Ireland,  — as  they  had  previously  been  surrendered  in  Eng- 
land,— in  exchange  for  a fixed  Civil  List  of  145,000/.,  ex- 
clusive of  pensions;  and  a Pension  List  of  124,000/.,  to 
be  reduced  to  80,000/.  Meanwhile  the  Crown  was  re- 
strained from  granting  pensions  in  any  one  year  exceeding 
1200/. : but  still  retained  and  exercised  the  power  of  grant- 
ing pensions  for  life,  and  in  reversion.  It  was  not  until 
1813  that  the  Irish  Pension  List  was  reduced  to  80,000/.,  as 
contemplated  by  this  Act.  On  the  accession  of  George  IV., 
this  list  was  further  reduced  to  50,000/.  : no  grants  exceed- 
ing 1200/.  in  one  year,  being  permitted  until  that  reduction 
had  been  effected.2 

The  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown,  in  Scotland,  re- 
mained exempt  from  parliamentary  control  until  gcotch  Pen_ 
1810.  At  that  time,  the  pensions  charged  upon  sion  List- 
them  amounted  to  39,000/.  It  was  then  arranged  by  Par- 
liament that  no  amount  greater  than  800/.  should  be  granted 
in  any  one  year,  until  the  pensions  had  been  reduced  to 
25,000/. ; and  that  no  pension  exceeding  300/.  a year  should 
be  given  to  any  one  person.3 

There  was  still  one  fund  left  beyond  the  control  of  Par- 
liament, and  of  course  amply  charged  with  pen- 

. rm  j i -■  • Pensions  on 

sions.  1 he  4J-  per  cent,  duties  were  not  surren-  the  u per 
dered  until  1830,  when  William  IV.  gave  up  his  cent-'duties- 
own  life  interest  in  them : the  pensions  previously  granted 
being  still  payable  by  the  state. 

1 33  Geo.  III.  c.  34  (Ireland). 

2 1 Geo.  IV.  c.  1,  s.  10. 


s 50  Geo.  III.  c.  111. 


214 


CIVIL  LIST  PENSIONS. 


At  this  time,  the  three  pension  lists  of  England,  Scotland, 
and  Ireland,  were  consolidated ; and  the  entire 

Consolidation  . 

of  the  Pen-  Civil  Pension  List  tor  the  United  Kingdom  was 
sion  Lists.  re(juced  from  145,7507.  to  75,0007.;  the  remain- 
der of  the  pensions  being  charged  upon  the  Consolidated 
Fund. 

Finally,  on  the  accession  of  her  present  Majesty,  the  right 
„ , A.  . of  the  Crown  to  grant  pensions  was  restricted  to 

Regulation  ol  ° r 

pensions  in  12007.  a year.  Such  pensions  were  now  con- 

1837  " 

fined,  according  to  the  terms  of  a resolution  of 
the  House  of  Commons  of  the  18th  Feb.  1834,  to  “ such 
persons  as  have  just  claims  on  the  royal  beneficence,  or  who, 
by  their  personal  services  to  the  Crown,  by  the  performance 
of  duties  to  the  public,  or  by  their  useful  discoveries  in  sci- 
ence and  attainments  in  literature  and  the  arts,  have  merited 
the  gracious  consideration  of  their  sovereign,  and  the  grat- 
itude of  their  country.”  1 At  the  same  time  an  inquiry  was 
directed  by  the  House  of  Commons  to  be  made  into  the  ex- 
isting Pension  List,  which  resulted  in  the  voluntary  surren- 
der of  some  pensions,  and  the  suspension  or  discontinuance 
of  others.2 

The  pensions  thus  reduced  in  amount,  and  subjected  to 
proper  regulation,  have  since  been  beyond  the  reach  of  con- 
stitutional jealousy.  They  no  longer  afford  the  means  of 
corruption,  — they  add  little  to  the  influence  of  the  Crown, 
— they  impose  a trifling  burden  on  the  people,  — and  the 
names  of  those  who  receive  the  royal  bounty,  are  generally 
such  as  to  command  respect  and  sympathy. 

Such  being  the  pecuniary  relations  of  the  Crown  and  royal 
family  to  Parliament,  let  us  take  a brief  review  of 

Powers  of  the  J p ..  . . 

king  over  the  the  relations  of  the  royal  family  to  the  reigning 

royal  family. 

sovereign. 

Among  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  is  to  be  reckoned 
a more  than  parental  authority  over  the  royal  family ; and, 


1 1 Viet.  c.  2 ; Report  on  Civil  List,  Dec.  5th,  1837. 
2 Report  on  Pensions,  24th  July,  1838. 


MARRIAGES  OF  THE  KING’S  BROTHERS. 


215 


in  1772,  the  king  sought  the  aid  of  Parliament  in  enlarging 
his  powers.  The  Duke  of  Gloucester  had  been  Marriage  of 
married  for  several  years  to  the  Countess  Dow-  the  Duke  of 

, it  i t i Gloucester. 

ager  of  Waldegrave  : but  had  not  publicly  ac- 
knowledged her  as  his  consort,  nor  had  she  assumed  his 
title.1  At  court  she  was  neither  recognized  as  his  wife,  nor 
discountenanced  as  his  mistress : but  held  an  equivocal  posi- 
tion between  these  two  characters. 

But  in  the  autumn  of  1771,  another  of  the  king’s  brothers, 
the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  announced  to  the  king 
his  marriage  with  Mrs.  Horton,  whom  he  at  once  of  Cumber- 
called  Duchess  of  Cumberland.  By  a singular 
coincidence,  his  bride  was  a daughter  of  Lord  Irnham,  and 
a sister  of  the  famous  Colonel  Luttrell,  whom  the  court 
party  had  put  into  Wilkes’s  seat  for  Middlesex.  The  mor- 
tification of  the  king,  was  only  to  be  equalled  by  the  mali- 
cious triumph  of  Wilkes.  The  family  which  had  been  made 
the  instrument  of  his  oppression,  had  now  brought  shame 
upon  the  king.2  The  Duke  and  Duchess  were  not  only  for- 
bidden to  appear  at  court  themselves  : but  their  society  was 
interdicted  to  all  who  desired  to  be  admitted  to  the  palace.3 
At  first  the  king  was  not  without  hope  that  the  validity  of 
the  marriage  might  be  questioned.  It  had  been  solemnized 
without  the  usual  formalities  prescribed  by  the  law : but  the 
royal  family  had  been  excepted  from  Lord  Hardwicke’s 
Marriage  Act,  by  the  express  command  of  George  II.,  who 
would  not  allow  restraints,  intended  only  for  his  subjects,  to 
be  imposed  upon  his  own  family.4  Such  restraints  might 
now  have  postponed,  or  even  prevented  this  hateful  mar- 
riage. The  alliance  of  the  Duke  of  Cumberland  with  a 

1 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  402,  408. 

2 Walpole  says,  “Could  punishment  be  more  severe  than  to  be  thus 
scourged  by  their  own  instrument  ? And  how  singular  the  fate  of  Wilkes, 
that  new  revenge  always  presented  itself  to  him  when  he  was  sunk  to  the 
lowest  ebb ! ” — Mem . iv.  356. 

3 Ibid.  362. 

4 Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  359. 


216 


POWERS  OF  THE  KING 


subject,  was  followed  by  the  public  avowal  of  his  marriage 
by  the  Duke  of  Gloucester,  whose  wife’s  position  would  have 
been  seriously  compromised  by  any  longer  concealment. 

The  king  was  now  resolved  to  impose  such  restrictions 
upon  future  marriages  in  his  own  family,  as  had  never  been 
contemplated  for  his  subjects.  And,  in  truth,  if  alliances 
with  persons  not  of  royal  blood  were  to  be  prevented,  the 
king  and  his  brothers  had  given  proof  enough  of  the  dan- 
gers to  which  princes  are  exposed.  In  his  youth  the  king 
had  been  himself  in  love  with  Lady  Sarah  Lennox : 1 the 
Duke  of  York  had  been  attached  to  Lady  Mary  Coke  ; 
and  now  his  Majesty  was  deploring  the  marriages  of  his 
brothers. 

The  prerogative  claimed  by  the  Crown,  in  matters  con- 
King’s  power  cerning  the  royal  family,  was  already  consider- 
grandchii-  able.  In  1718,  King  George  I.,  when  in  open 

dren.  enmity  with  his  son,  the  Prince  of  Wales,  main- 

tained that  he  had  power,  by  virtue  of  his  prerogative,  to 
direct  the  education  of  his  grandchildren,  and  even  to  dis- 
pose of  them  in  marriage, .to  the  exclusion  of  the  parental 
authority  of  the  prince.  A question  was  submitted  to  the 
judges ; and  ten  out  of  the  twelve,  led  by  Lord  Chief  Jus- 
tice Parker,  afterwards  Lord  Macclesfield,  decided  in  favor 
of  the  king’s  claim.2  Even  the  two  dissentient  judges,  who 
were  of  opinion  that  the  education  of  the  king’s  grandchil- 
dren belonged  to  their  father,  yet  held,  “ that  the  care  and 
approbation  of  their  marriages,  when  grown  up,  belong  to 
the  king  of  this  realm.”  3 

It  was  now  proposed  to  enlarge  this  prerogative,  and  ex- 
tend the  king’s  powers,  by  the  authority  of  the  law.  On 

1 Mr.  Grenville  relates  in  his  Diary,  that  the  king  actually  proposed  to 
marry  her,  and  that  her  engagement  with  Lord  Newbottle  was  conse- 
quently broken  off  : but  she  broke  her  leg  while  out  riding,  and  during 
her  absence,  the  match  was  prevented,  by  representations  that  she  contin- 
ued her  intercourse  with  Lord  Newbottle. — Grenv.  Papers,  iv.  209. 

2 St.  Tr.  xv.  1195.  Lord  Campbell’s  Lives,  iv.  p.  521. 

3 St.  Tr.  xv.  1225. 


OYER  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY. 


217 


the  20th  February,  1772,  a message  from  the  king  was 
delivered  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  stating  n 

7 < ° Royal  Mar- 

that  he  was  desirous  “ that  the  right  of  approving  nage  Act, 
all  marriages  in  the  royal  family  (which  ever  has 
belonged  to  the  kings  of  this  realm,  as  a matter  of  public 
concern)  may  be  made  effectual ; ” and  recommending  to 
their  consideration  the  expediency  of  guarding  “the  de- 
scendants of  his  late  Majesty  George  II.”  (other  than  the 
issue  of  princesses  married  into  foreign  families),  from  mar- 
rying without  the  approbation  of  the  king. 

On  the  following  day,  the  Poyal  Marriage  Bill  was  pre- 
sented to  the  House  of  Lords.  The  preamble  af-  Prerogative 
firmed  the  prerogative,  as  claimed  in  the  message,  garTto  royal" 
to  its  fullest  extent,  and  the  wisdom  and  ex^edi-  marriages, 
ency  of  the  king’s  recommendation.  The  bill  provided  that 
no  descendant  of  George  II.  (except  the  issue  of  princesses 
married  into  foreign  families)  should  be  capable  of  contract- 
ing matrimony,  without  the  king’s  previous  consent,  signified 
under  his  sign-manual,  and  declared  in  council ; and  that 
any  marriage  contracted  without  such  consent,  should  be 
null  and  void.  There  was  a proviso,  however,  — which  it 
seems  had  not  been  contemplated,  when  the  message  was 
delivered, — -enabling  members  of  the  royal  family  above 
twenty-five  years  of  age,  to  marry  without  the  king’s  con- 
sent, after  having  given  twelve  months’  previous  notice  to 
the  Privy  Council,  unless  in  the  mean  time,  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  should  signify  their  disapprobation  of  the  mar- 
riage. This  concession,  it  is  said,  was  caused  by  the  resig- 
nation of  Mr.  Fox,  who  intended  to  oppose  the  measure, 
and  by  the  disapprobation  of  some  of  the  advisers  of  the 
Crown.1  It  was  also  provided  that  any  person  solemnizing, 
or  assisting,  or  being  present  at  the  celebration  of  such  pro- 
hibited marriages,  should  incur  the  penalties  of  praemunire. 

This  was  unquestionably  the  king’s  own  measure,  and  was 
reluctantly  adopted  by  his  ministers.  His  views  of  preroga- 
1 Fox’s  Mem.  i.  75  (H.  Walpole). 


218 


POWERS  OF  THE  KING 


tive  were  exalted ; and  in  his  own  family  at  least,  he  was 
resolved  that  his  authority  should  be  supreme.  The  abso- 
lute control  which  he  now  sought  for,  over  members  of  his 
family  of  full  age,  was  not  a little  startling.  First,  as  to  his 
claim  of  prerogative.  Had  it  ever  yet  been  asserted  to  the 
same  extent?  It  had  been  recognized  by  the  “grand  opin- 
ion”— as  it  was  called,  — of  the  judges  in  1718,  so  far  as 
regarded  the  king’s  grandchildren,  but  no  farther  ; and  it  is 
impossible  to  read  the  arguments  of  the  judges  in  that  case, 
without  being  impressed  with  the  slender  grounds,  strained 
constructions  of  law  and  precedent,  and  far-fetched  views  of 
expediency,  upon  which  their  conclusion  was  founded.  As 
a matter  of  state  policy,  it  may  be  necessary  that  the  king 
should  be  empowered  to  negotiate  alliances  for  the  royal 
family,  and  for  that  purpose  should  have  more  than  parental 
authority.  But  the  present  claim  extended  to  brothers  of 
whatever  age, — to  uncles,  and  to  cousins.  So  comprehen- 
sive a claim  could  not  be  at  once  admitted.  This  question, 
Question  to  therefore,  was  put  to  the  judges  : “ Is  the  king  in- 
the  judges,  trusted  by  law  with  the  care  and  approbation  of 
the  marriages  of  the  descendants  of  his  late  Majesty  George 
II.,  other  than  his  present  Majesty’s  own  children,  during 
their  minorities  ? ” As  this  question  extended  to  all  descend- 
ants of  George  II.,  whether  within  this  kingdom  or  not, 
nine  judges  unanimously  answered  it  in  the  negative ; and 
to  another  question,  more  restricted,  they  replied,  “ that  the 
care  and  approbation  of  the  marriages  of  the  king’s  children 
and  grandchildren,  and  of  the  presumptive  heir  to  the  Crown 
(other  than  the  issue  of  princesses  married  into  foreign  fam- 
ilies) do  belong  to  the  kings  of  this  realm  ; but  to  what  other 
branches  of  the  royal  family  such  care  and  approbation  ex- 
tend, we  do  not  find  precisely  determined.”  1 It  was  plain 
that  the  bill  declared  the  prerogative  to  be  much  more  ex- 
tensive, than  that  allowed  by  the  judges.  Yet  in  spite  of 
their  opinion,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Lord  Apsley,  with  an 
1 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  387. 


OYER  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY. 


219 


effrontery  worthy  of  Lord  Thurlow,  said  that  “ he  would 
defend  every  clause,  every  sentence,  every  word,  every  syl- 
lable, and  every  letter  ” in  the  bill ; and  “ would  not  consent 
to  any  amendment  whatsoever  ! ” The  prerogative,  he  as- 
serted, wras  founded  in  its  u importance  to  the  state  : ” an  ar- 
gument which  might  be  extended  to  any  other  power  claimed 
by  the  Crown,  on  the  same  ground. 

The  arbitrary  character  of  the  bill  was  conspicuous.  It 
might  be  reasonable  to  prescribe  certain  rules  for  4 . 

° 1 Arbitrary 

the  marriage  of  the  royal  family : as  that  they  principles  of 
• ^ . ,.  this  Act. 

should  not  marry  a subject,  - — a Koman  Catholic, 

— or  the  member  of  any  royal  house  at  war  with  this  coun- 
try, without  the  consent  of  the  king  : but  to  prescribe  no  rule 
at  all  save  the  absolute  will  of  the  king  himself,  was  a vio- 
lation of  all  sound  principles  of  legislation.  Again,  to  extend 
the  minority  of  princes  and  princesses  to  twenty-five,  created 
a harsh  exception  to  the  general  law,  in  regard  to  marriages.1 
The  prohibition  of  a marriage  might  continue  until  the  age 
of  twenty-six  ; and  required  nothing  but  the  vote  of  a Par- 
liament subservient  to  the  Crown,  to  render  it  perpetual ; 
and  this  not  by  virtue  of  any  general  principle  of  law,  — 
human  or  divine,  — but  by  the  arbitrary  will  of  a superior 
power. 

But  the  personal  will  of  the  king  triumphed  over  all  op- 
position, whether  of  argument  or  numbers ; and  he  was  im- 
placable against  those  who  opposed  it.2  The  bill  was  passed 

1 A squib  appeared  in  answer  to  the  obj  ection  that  a prince  might  as- 
cend the  throne  at  eighteen,  yet  might  not  marry  till  twenty-five  : 

“ Quoth  Tom  to  Dick,  — ‘ Thou  art  a fool, 

And  little  know’st  of  life  : 

Alas ! ’tis  easier  far  to  rule 
A kingdom,  than  a wife.’  ” — 

Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  407. 

2 Fox’s  Mem.  i.  75.  Lord  Chatham  said  of  the  Bill,  “ The  doctrine  of 
the  Royal  Marriage  Bill  is  certainly  new-fangled  and  impudent,  and  the 
extent  of  the  powers  given  wanton  and  tyrannical.”  — Letter  to  Lord  Shel- 
burne, April  3d,  1772,  Corr.  iv.  203. 

Horace  Walpole  said,  “ Never  was  an  Act  passed  against  which  so  much, 
and  for  which  so  little  was  said.”  — Fox's  Mem.  i.  81. 


220 


POWERS  OF  THE  KING 


rapidly  through  the  House  of  Lords ; though  not  without 
one  protest,  signed  by  fourteen  peers,  and  another  signed  by 
seven,  in  which  the  most  material  objections  to  the  measure 
were  concisely  expressed.  In  the  Commons  the  bill  met  with 
a more  strenuous  and  protracted  opposition : — the  Lords’ 
Journals  were  searched  for  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  — and 
the  most  serious  arguments  against  the  measure  were  ably 
and  learnedly  discussed.  But  it  was  still  carried  with  a high 
hand.  The  doors  of  the  House  wTere  closed  against  all 
strangers,  — peers  in  vain  sought  admission  below  the  bar, 
— and  the  Government  even  went  so  far  as  to  refuse  the 
printing  of  the  bill,  and  supported  their  refusal  by  a large 
majority.  No  amendment  was  suffered  to  be  made,  except 
one  of  pedantic  form,  suggested  by  the  speaker,  that  the 
king’s  consent  to  a marriage  should  be  signified  under  the 
great  seal ; and  on  the  24th  March  the  bill  was  passed.  At- 
tempts have  since  been  made,  without  success,  to  repeal  this 
law ; 1 and  to  evade  its  provisions  ; but  it  has  been  inflexibly 
maintained. 

In  1785  the  Prince  of  Wales  contracted  a clandestine 
Secret  mar-  marriage  with  Mrs.  Fitzherbert,  a Roman  Catho- 
PriMeofhe  His  marriage  being  without  the  king’s  con- 

Wales*  sent,  and  consequently  invalid,  the  princely  liber- 
tine ventured  to  satisfy  the  scruples  of  his  paramour,  and  to 
indulge  his  own  passions ; while  he  was  released  from  the 
sacred  obligations  of  the  marriage  tie,  and  saved  from  the 
forfeiture  of  his  succession  to  the  Crown,  which  would  have 
been  the  legal  consequence  of  a valid  marriage  with  a Ro- 
man Catholic.  Even  his  pretended  marriage,  though  void 
in  law,  would  have  raised  embarrassing  doubts  and  discus- 
sions concerning  the  penal  provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights ; 
and,  if  confessed,  would  undoubtedly  have  exposed  him  to 
obloquy  and  discredit.  The  prince,  therefore,  denied  the  fact 
of  his  marriage ; and  made  his  best  friend  the  unconscious 
instrument  of  this  falsehood  and  deception.2 

1 By  Lord  Holland,  in  1820;  Hansard’s  Debates,  New  Ser.,  i.  1099. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  1070.  See  an  excellent  letter  from  Mr.  Fox  to  the 


OYER  THE  ROYAL  FAMILY. 


221 


The  Duke  of  Sussex  was  twice  married  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Crown  ; first,  in  1793,  to  Lady  Augusta 

. T 7 n ...  tt  i Marriages  of 

Murray  ; and,  later  m life,  to  Lady  Cecilia  Under-  the  Duke  of 
wood.  His  first  marriage  having  been  solemnized 
abroad,  a question  was  raised  whether  it  was  rendered  invalid 
by  the  Royal  Marriage  Act.  It  was  again  celebrated  in  Eng- 
land, where  it  was  unquestionably  illegal. 

The  king  immediately  directed  a suit  of  nullity  of  mar- 
riage to  be  commenced  by  his  proctor,  and  it  was  adjudged 
by  the  Court  of  Arches,  that  the  marriage  was  absolutely 
null  and  void.1 

In  1831  the  law  officers  of  the  Crown  were  consulted  by 
the  government  as  to  the  validity  of  this  marriage ; and  their 
opinions  confirmed  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Arches. 
On  the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Sussex  in  1843,  Sir  Augustus 
D?Este,  the  son  of  his  Royal  Highness  by  this  marriage, 
claimed  the  dukedom  and  other  honors  of  his  father.  The 
marriage  had  been  solemnized  at  Rome  in  1793,  according 
to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  a clergyman  of 
that  establishment,  and  would  have  been  a valid  contract  be- 
tween British  subjects  but  for  the  restrictions  of  the  Royal 
Marriage  Act ; and  it  was  contended  before  the  House  of 
Lords,  that  the  operation  of  that  Act  could  not  be  extended 
beyond  the  British  dominions.  But  it  was  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  judges,  — in  which  the  House  of  Lords  con- 
curred, — that  the  prohibition  of  the  statute  was  personal, 
and  followed  the  persons  to  whom  it  applied,  out  of  -the 
realm,  and  beyond  the  British  jurisdiction.  It  was  accord- 

Prince,  Dec.  10th,  1785,  dissuading  his  Royal  Highness  from  the  marriage. 
— Fox's  Mem.  ii.  278,  284,  287.  — The  prince  confessed  his  marriage  to 
Lord  Grey;  Ibid.  289.  Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  and  Times  of  Fox,  ii.  177, 
et  seq.  Lord  Holland’s  Mem.  of  the  Whig  Party,  ii.  126,  et  seq.  Lang- 
dale’s  Mem.  of  Mrs.  Fitzherbert.  The  general  incidents  of  this  discredita- 
ble marriage  do  not  fall  within  the  design  of  this  work;  but  a most  ani- 
mated and  graphic  narrative  of  them  will  be  found  in  Mr.  Massey’s 
History,  vol.  iii.  315-331. 

1 Heseltine  v.  Lady  A.  Murray,  Addam’s  Reports,  ii.  400;  Burn’s  Eccl. 
Law,  ii.  433 ; Ann.  Reg.  1794,  p.  23. 


222  POWERS  OF  THE  KING,  ETC: 


ingly  decided  that  the  claimant  had  not  made  out  his 
claim.1 

The  prerogative  of  the  king  to  direct  the  education  of  his 
Education  of  grandchildren,  which  had  been  established  in  1718, 
charlotte,  was  aga^n  asserted  in  1804.  The  king  claimed 
1804-  the  guardianship  of  the  Princess  Charlotte ; and 

the  Prince  of  Wales,  her  father,  being  perplexed  with  di- 
vided councils,  was  long  in  doubt  whether  he  should  concede 
or  contest  the  right.2  At  length  he  appears  to  have  agreed 
that  the  king  should  have  the  direction  of  the  princess’s 
education.  The  understanding  not  being  very  precise,  a 
misapprehension  arose  as  to  its  conditions  ; and  it  was  said 
that  the  prince  had  withdrawn  from  his  engagement.3  But 
Mr.  Pitt  ultimately  arranged  this  difference  by  obtaining  the 
removal  of  the  princess  to  Windsor,  without  excluding  the 
prince  from  a share  in  the  control  of  her  education.4 


1 Clark  and  Finnelly’s  Reports,  xi.  85-154. 

2 Lord  Malmesbury  says:  “ The  two  factions  pulled  the  prince  different 
ways:  Ladies  Moira,  Hutchinson,  and  Mrs.  Fitzherbert,  were  for  his  ced- 
ing the  child  to  the  king;  the  Duke  of  Clarence  and  Devonshire  House 
most  violent  against  it,  and  the  prince  ever  inclines  to  the  faction  he  saw 
last.  In  the  Devonshire  House  Cabal,  Lady  Melbourne  and  Mrs.  Fox  act 
conspicuous  parts  so  that  the  alternative  for  our  future  queen  seems  to  be 
whether  Mrs.  Fox  or  Mrs.  Fitzherbert  shall  have  the  ascendency.”  — 
Malm.  Diar .,  iv.  343. 

3 Letters  of  Mr.  T.  Grenville  to  the  Marquess  of  Buckingham,  Nov.  26th, 
Dec.  1st  and  11th,  1804;  Court  and  Cab.  of  Geo.  III.,  iii.  372,  385,  389,  391. 

4 Ibid.  395,  398. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


223 


CHAPTER  Y. 

The  House  of  Lords : — Constant  additions  to  its  Numbers : — Profuse  cre- 
ations in  the  Reign  of  George  III.  and  since.  — Representative  Peers  of 
Scotland  and  Ireland:  — Representative  Character  of  the  Peerage:  — 
Life  Peerages.  — The  Bishops.  — Political  Position  of  the  House  of 
Lords:  — Its  Enlargement  a Source  of  Power:  — Threatened  creation 
of  Peers  to  carry  the  Reform  Bill.  — The  Aristocracy,  and  Classes  asso- 
ciated with  it. 

Nothing  in  the  history  of  our  constitution  is  more  re- 
markable than  the  permanence  of  every  institution 

0 n . * n i Permanence 

forming  part  ot  the  .Government  ot  the  country,  of  British  in- 
while undergoing  continual,  and  often  extraordi-  stltutl0ns* 
nary  changes  in  its  powers,  privileges,  and  influence.  The 
Crown,  as  we  have  seen,  remains  with  all  its  prerogatives 
undiminished,  and  with  its  sources  of  influence  increased ; 
yet  in  the  exercise  of  its  great  powers  by  responsible  minis- 
ters, it  has  been  gradually  controlled  by  Parliament  and  public 
opinion,  until  the  authority  of  the  Crown  in  government  and 
legislation,  bears  as  little  resemblance  to  the  sway  of  the 
Tudor  and  Stuart  kings,  as  to  that  of  Louis  XIV. 

So  also  the  House  of  Lords  continues  to  hold  its  high 
place  in  the  state,  next  to  the  Crown,  and  still  The  House  of 
enjoys  the  greater  part  of  its  ancient  privileges.  Peers' 

Yet  no  institution  has  undergone  greater  changes.  In  its 
numbers,  its  composition,  and  its  influence,  it  is  difficult  to 
recognize  its  identity  with  the  “ Great  Council  ” of  a former 
age.  But  the  changes  which  it  has  undergone  have  served 
to  bring  this  great  institution  into  harmony  with  other  parts 
of  the  constitution,  and  with  the  social  condition  of  the  peo- 
ple, upon  which  time  has  worked  equal  mutations. 


224 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


The  continual  additions  which  have  been  made  to  the 
number  of  temporal  peers,  sitting  in  Parliament, 

Constant  ad-  1 , , . 

ditions  to  its  have  been  so  remarkable  as  to  change  the  very 
constitution  and  character  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
No  more  than  twenty-nine  temporal  peers  received  writs  of 
summons  to  the  first  Parliament  of  Henry  VII. ; and  this 
number  had  increased  at  the  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to 
fifty -nine.  The  Stuarts  were  profuse  in  their  creations,1  and 
raised  the  number  of  the  peerage  to  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty ; 2 which  William  III.  and  Queen  Anne  further  in- 
creased to  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight.  In  the  latter  reign 
no  less  than  twelve  peers  were  created  at  once,  to  turn  a 
majority  in  favor  of  the  court,  which  they  did  on  the  very 
„ x day  of  their  introduction.3  In  this  same  reign 

Representa-  J ° 

tive  peers  of  were  also  added,  on  the  Union  with  Scotland,  six- 

Scotland. 

teen  representative  peers,  — a number  scarcely 
adequate  to  represent  an  ancient  peerage,  little  less  numer- 
ous than  that  of  England,4  in  a House  of  Lords,  in  which 
sat  twenty-six  bishops  to  make  laws  for  Presbyterian  Scot- 
land. But  if  some  injustice  was  then  done  to  the  Scottish 
peerage,  it  has  since  been  amply  redressed,  as  will  be  seen 
hereafter. 

This  rapid  increase  of  the  peerage  had  been  regarded 

1 James  I.  created  sixty-two;  Charles  I.,  fifty-nine;  Charles  II.,  sixty- 
four;  and  James  II.,  eight;  being  a total  number  of  one  hundred  and 
ninety-three;  but  during  these  reigns  ninety-nine  peerages  became  ex- 
tinct, and  thus  the  total  addition  to  the  peerage  was  ninety-four.  From 
returns  delivered  to  the  House  of  Lords  in  1719.  As  many  of  these  peer- 
ages were  sold  by  James  I.  and  Charles  II.,  it  is  surprising  that  the  crea- 
tions were  not  even  more  numerous. 

2 In  1661,  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  lords  were  summoned.  In  1696, 
the  total  number  of  temporal  peers,  exclusive  of  minors,  Roman  Catholics, 
and  nonjurors,  was  about  one  hundred  and  forty.  — Macaulay's  Hist.,  iv. 
753. 

8 2d  January,  1711.  Lords’  Journ.  xix.  353.  Somerville’s  Queen  Anne, 
460.  Smollett’s  Hist.  ii.  224. 

4 There  was  one  hundred  and  fifty-four  Scottish  peers  at  the  time  of  the 
Union.  The  roll  is  printed  in  Lords’  Journ.  xviii.  458.  Lord  Haversham 
said  upwards  of  one  hundred  peers  would  be  disfranchised. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


225 


with  much  jealousy  by  that  privileged  body,  whose  individual 
dignity  and  power  were  proportionately  dimin-  The  peerage 
ished.  Early  in  the  reign  of  George  I.,  several  new  BlU  of  1719, 
creations  further  aroused  the  apprehensions  of  the  peers ; and, 
in  1719,  partly  to  gratify  their  lordships,  — but  more,  per- 
haps, to  further  party  objects,1  — a bill  was  brought  into  the 
House  of  Lords  by  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  proposing  an  ex- 
traordinary limitation  of  the  royal  prerogative,  — to  which 
the  king  himself  was  induced  to  signify  his  consent.  The 
Crown  was  to  be  restrained  from  the  creation  of  more  than 
six  beyond  the  existing  number  of  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
eight  peerages,  — the  power  being  still  reserved  of  creating 
a new  peerage  whenever  a peerage  should  become  extinct ; 
and  instead  of  sixteen  representative  peers  of  Scotland,  it 
was  proposed  that  twenty-five  hereditary  peers  should  have 
seats  in  the  House  of  Lords.  This  bill  soon  reached  a third 
reading ; but  not  until  it  had  raised  so  much  dissatisfaction 
in  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  country,  that  its  promoters 
thought  it  prudent  to  abandon  it.2  In  the  next  session,  how- 
ever, another  bill  was  introduced,  by  the  Duke  of  Bucking- 
ham, and  sent  down  to  the  Commons ; where,  after  an  effect- 
ual exposure  of  its  unconstitutional  character,  — especially 
by  Sir  Richard  Steele,  and  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  — it  was 
rejected  by  a majority  of  two  hundred  and  sixty -nine  voices, 
against  one  hundred  and  seventy-seven.3  It  was,  in  truth, 
an  audacious  attempt  to  limit  the  prerogative  of  the 
Crown,  and  discourage  the  granting  of  just  rewards  to  merit, 
for  the  sake  of  perpetuating  a close  aristocratic  body,  — 

3 The  Prince  of  Wales  was  supposed  not  to  be  friendly  to  the  Whig 
party  then  in  power,  which  was  said  to  be  the  reason  why  Lord  Sunder- 
land persuaded  the  king  to  consent  to  the  bill. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  vii.  589-594.  Coxe’s  Life  of  Walpole,  i.  116. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  vii.  606-627.  Coxe’s  Life  of  Walpole,  i.  117-125;  ii.  551. 
Sir  Robert  Walpole  also  opposed  the  measure  in  a pamphlet  entitled,  “ The 
Thoughts  of  a Member  of  the  Lower  House  in  relation  to  a project  for  re- 
straining and  limiting  the  power  of  the  Crown  in  the  future  creation  of 
Peers.”  Steele  likewise  opposed  it  in  “ The  Plebeian,”  while  Addison 
warmly  supported  it  in  “ The  Old  Whig.” 

VOL.  i.  15 


226 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


independent  of  the  Crown  and  irresponsible  to  the  peo- 
ple. 

The  first  two  kings  of  the  House  of  Hanover  continued  to 
Number  of  make  additions  to  the  peerage,  which  on  the  acces- 
fnpLSiia-mS  si°n  °f  George  III.  amounted  to  one  hundred  and 
ment,  1760.  seventy-four.  Of  this  number,  thirteen  minors,  and 
twelve  Roman  Catholics  were  incapable  of  sitting  and  voting 
in  Parliament.1 

Great  as  had  been  the  additions  to  the  peerage  since  the 
Profuse  crea-  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  they  were  destined  to  be 
reign  of the  far  exceeded  in  this  and  succeeding  reigns.  The 
George  hi.  creation  of  peers,  having  become  an  expedient  for 
increasing  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  and  the  strength  of 
parties,  was  freely  resorted  to  by  successive  ministers.  In 
the  first  ten  years  of  this  reign  forty-two  peers  were  created, 
or  raised  to  a higher  order  in  the  peerage.2 

Lord  North  was  liberal  in  the  creation  of  peers,  with  a 
Creations  by  view  to  strengthen  his  own  position,  and  carry  out 
Lord  North.  p0jjCy  0f  ^he  court.  In  1776,  before  the  con- 
tinued arrears  of  the  Civil  List  were  again  brought  before 
Parliament,  ten  new  peers  were  created,  one  baron  was  raised 
to  the  dignity  of  a viscount,  and  three  were  promoted  to  earl- 
doms.3 During  his  administration,  he  created  or  promoted 
about  thirty  British  peers.4  In  Ireland,  he  distributed  hon- 
ors still  more  liberally.  In  1777  he  created  eighteen  barons, 
and  raised  seven  barons  and  five  viscounts  to  higher  dignities 
in  the  peerage. 

Mr.  Pitt  dispensed  honors  with  greater  profusion  than  any 
Creations  by  former  minister.  During  the  first  five  years  of 
Mr.  Pitt.  Yiis  administration,  he  had  created  nearly  fifty 
peers.6  The  influence  he  had  himself  derived  from  thus 

1 Court  and  City  Register  for  1760. 

2 Beatson’s  Political  Index,  i.  133. 

8 Lord  North’s  Administration,  257. 

4 Beatson’s  Political  Index,  i.  137. 

6 In  the  debates  upon  the  Regencjr,  Mr.  Fox  said  forty-two,  and  Mr. 
Sheridan  forty-eight.  From  Beatson’s  Political  Index  (i.  140)  the  latter 
statement  appears  to  be  strictly  accurate.  Pari.  Hist,  xxvii.  967,  &c. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


227 


gratifying  his  supporters,  suggested  to  him  the  precaution  of 
restricting  the  regent  in  the  exercise  of  this  prerogative. 
This  restriction  he  proposed  to  extend  to  the  en-  Restriction 
tire  period  of  the  regency,  which,  however,  he  on°theRe-lip" 
trusted  would  be  of  short  duration.  Having  ere-  eent>  ml‘89. 
ated  peers  to  consolidate  his  own  power,  he  was  unwilling  to 
leave  the  same  instrument  in  the  hands  of  his  opponents. 
Had  his  proposal  taken  effect,  such  a restraint,  — extending 
over  the  whole  regency,  — was  open  to  many  of  the  objec- 
tions which  are  admitted  to  apply  to  the  more  extensive  lim- 
itation contemplated  in  1719.  It  was  said  by  Mr.  Pitt  that 
the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  was  required  to  reward  merit, 
to  recruit  the  peerage  from  the  great  landowners  and  other 
opulent  classes,  and  to  render  the  Crown  independent  of  fac- 
tious combinations  amongst  the  existing  peers.1  All  these 
grounds  were  as  applicable  to  the  regency  as  to  any  other 
time ; while  the  fact  of  a powerful  minister  having  recently 
made  so  large  an  addition  to  the  House  of  Lords  from  his 
own  party,  was  the  strongest  argument  against  the  proposed 
restriction.  To  tie  up  the  hands  of  the  regent,  Restriction 
was  to  perpetuate  the  power  of  the  minister.  A regency  of 
similar  condition  was  afterwards  imposed  upon  the  1811  ‘ 
regent  in  1810 ; but,  being  limited  to  one  year,  was  exposed 
to  less  objection. 

In  1792,  when  Mr.  Pitt  had  been  eight  years  in  power,  he 

had  created  between  sixty  and  seventy  peers,2  the  Continued 

greater  part  of  whom  owed  their  elevation  to  the  creations  by 
° i Mr. pitt- 

parliamentary  support  which  they  had  themselves 

given  to  the  minister,  or  to  their  interest  in  returning  mem- 

1 His  speech  on  the  16th  Jan.,  1789,  is  so  imperfectly  reported,  that  his 
reasoning  can  only  be  gathered  from  the  context  of  the  debate,  in  which 
his  observations  are  adverted  to. 

2 Mr.  Sheridan’s  speech  on  Parliamentary  Reform,  April  30th,  1792.  Mr. 
Courtenay,  speaking  in  1792,  said:  “It  had  been  a matter  of  complaint 
that  twenty-eight  peers  had  been  made  in  the  reign  of  George  I.,  which,  it 
was  argued,  would  destroy  the  balance  of  power  in  the  other  branches  of 
the  constitution.”  But  Pitt  “ had  created  three  times  as  many.”  Pari. 
Hist.  xxix.  1494.  The  number  of  creations  and  promotions  appears  to 
have  been  sixty-four.  Beatson’s  Political  Index,  i.  144. 


228 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


bers  to  the  House  of  Commons.  He  created  and  promoted 
no  less  than  thirty-five  peers,  within  the  space  of  two  years, 
in  1796  and  1797.1  And,  in  1801,  he  had  created  or  pro- 
moted, during  the  seventeen  years  of  his  administration, 
upwards  of  one  hundred  and  forty  peers,  sitting  by  hereditary 
right.2 3  He  also  introduced  as  members  of  that  body,  in  1801, 
the  Irish  representative  peers  and  bishops. 

The  peerage  of  Ireland,  on  the  union  of  that  country, 
was  dealt  with,  in  some  measure,  upon  different 

Representa-  . 

tive  peers  of  principles  from  that  of  Scotland.  The  principle 
of  representation  was  followed  ; twenty-eight  rep- 
resentative peers  being  admitted  to  seats  in  the  Parliament  of 
the  United  Kingdom.  But  they  were  elected,  not  for  the 
Parliament  only,  as  in  Scotland,  but  for  life.  Again,  no 
Scottish  peers  could  be  created  after  the  Union;  but  the 
peerage  of  Scotland  was  perpetuated,  as  an  ancient  and  ex- 
clusive aristocracy.  It  was  otherwise  with  Ireland.  It  was 
admitted  that  the  peerage  of  that  country  was  too  numerous, 
and  ought  gradually  to  be  diminished ; and  with  this  view, 
the  royal  prerogative  was  so  far  restricted,  that  one  Irish 
peer  only  can  be  created,  whenever  three  Irish  peerages,  — 
in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  Union,  — have  become  extinct. 
But  the  object  of  this  provision  being  ultimately  to  reduce  the 
number  of  Irish  peers,  — not  having  hereditary  seats  in  Par- 
liament, — to  one  hundred,  it  was  also  provided  that  when 
such  reduction  had  been  effected,  one  new  Irish  peerage  may 
be  created  as  often  as  a peerage  becomes  extinct,  or  as  often 
as  an  Irish  peer  becomes  entitled  by  descent  or  creation,  to 
a peerage  of  the  United  Kingdom. 

Another  peculiar  arrangement,  made  on  the  Union  of  Ire- 
land, was  the  permission  granted  to  Irish  peers  of 

Permission  to  . . . z.  Jr 

Irish  peers  to  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons  for  any  place  in 
House  of  Great  Britain,  — a privilege  of  which  they  have 
Commons.  extensively  availed  themselves.8 

1 Beatson’s  Political  Index,  i.  147. 

2 Ibid.  149,  et  seq. 

3 By  the  Reform  Bill  of  1860,  it  was  proposed  to  extend  this  privilege  to 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


229 


At  the  same  time,  an  addition  of  four  lords  spiritual  was 
made  to  the  House  of  Lords,  to  represent  the  epis- 

. . Irish  repre- 

copal  body  of  Ireland,  and  to  sit  by  rotation  or  sentative 
sessions  ; of  whom  an  archbishop  of  the  Church  in  blshops‘ 
Ireland  is  always  to  be  one.  At  the  Union  there  were 
twenty  bishoprics  and  archbishoprics  of  the  Church  in  Ire- 
land ; but  provision  was  made  in  1833,  by  the  Church  Tem- 
poralities Act,  for  the  reduction  of  that  number  to  ten.1 

Since  the  Union,  further  additions  have  continually  been 
made  to  the  peerage  of  the  United  Kingdom ; and  Peerages  of 
an  analysis  of  the  existing  peerage  presents  some  the  united 
singular  results.  In  1860,  the  House  of  Lords 
consisted  of  four  hundred  and  sixty  lords,  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral. The  number  of  hereditary  peers  of  the  summary  of 
United  Kingdom,  had  risen  to  three  hundred  and  creatl0ns- 
eighty-five,  exclusive  of  the  peers  of  the  blood  royal.  Of 
these  peerages,  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  were  created, 
in  the  long  reign  of  George  III. ; 2 forty -two  in  the  reign  of 
George  IV. ; 3 and  one  hundred  and  seventeen  since  the  acces- 
sion of  William  IV.4  Thus  two  and  hundred  eighty-seven 
peerages  have  been  created,  or  raised  to  their  present  rank, 

places  in  Ireland,  as  well  as  Great  Britain.  In  “ A Letter  to  the  Earl  of 
Listowel,  M.  P.  for  St.  Alban’s,  by  a 1 Joint  of  the  Tail,’  ” 1841,  the  posi- 
tion of  his  lordship  as  a peer  of  Ireland  and  a member  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  was  thus  adverted  to : “A  peer,  and  in  your  own  right  — and 
yet  a peer  without  rights ! Possessor  of  a name,  of  a dignity  having  no 
better  reality  than  in  a sound.  . . . True,  you  are  at  this  moment  a legis- 
lator, but  by  no  right  of  birth,  and  only  as  a commoner;  and,  again,  as 
representative  for  an  English  town,  not  for  one  in  Ireland.  However  great 
your  stake  in  that  country,  you  could  not,  though  fifty  places  were  held 
open  for  you,  accept  one ; your  marrowless  dignity  gliding  ghost-like  in, 
to  forbid  the  proffered  seat.” 

1 3 & 4 Will.  1Y.  c.  37,  Schedule  B. 

2 Viz.,  two  dukes,  thirteen  marquesses,  thirty -eight  earls,  eight  vis- 
counts, and  sixty-seven  barons. 

3 One  duke,  two  marquesses,  seven  earls,  three  viscounts,  twenty-nine 
barons. 

4 Two  dukes,  five  marquesses,  twenty  earls,  six  viscounts,  eighty-four 
barons. 


230 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


since  the  accession  of  George  III. ; or  very  nearly  three-fourths 
of  the  entire  number.  But  this  increase  is  exhibited  by  the 
existing  peerage  alone,  — notwithstanding  the  extinction  or 
merger  of  numerous  titles,  in  the  interval.  The  actual  num- 
ber of  creations  during  the  reign  of  George  III.  amounted  to 
three  hundred  and  eighty-eight ; or  more  than  the  entire 
present  number  of  the  peerage.1 

No  more  than  ninety-eight  of  the  existing  peerages  claim 
Antiquity  of  an  earlier  creation  than  the  reign  of  George  III. ; 
the  peerage,  fact  -g  an  imperfect  criterion  of  the  an- 

tiquity of  the  peerage.  When  the  possessor  of  an  ancient 
dignity  is  promoted  to  a higher  grade  in  the  peerage,  his 
lesser  dignity  becomes  merged  in  the  greater,  but  more  re- 
cent title.  An  earl  of  the  fifteenth  century,  is  transformed 
into  a marquess  of  the  nineteenth.  Many  of  the  families 
from  which  existing  peers  are  descended,  are  of  great  an- 
tiquity ; and  were  noble  before  their  admission  to  the  peer- 
age. Nor  must  the  ancient  nobility  of  the  Scottish  peerage 
be  forgotten  in  the  persons  of  those  high-born  men,  who  now 
figure  on  the  roll,  as  peers  of  the  United  Kingdom,  of  com- 
paratively recent  creation. 

Great  as  this  increase  of  peerages  has  been,  it  has  borne 
no  proportion  to  the  demands  made  upon  the  favor  of  the 

1 The  following  Table,  prepared  by  the  late  Mr.  Pulman,  Clarencieux 
King  of  Arms,  was  placed  at  my  disposal  by  the  kindness  of  his  son : 

Statement  showing  the  Number  of  Peerages  created  within  periods  of 
Twenty  Years , from  1700  to  1821. 


Dukes. 

Marquesses. 

Earls. 

Viscounts. 

Barons. 

From  1700  to  1720  inclusive 

22 

14 

33 

30 

58 

“ 1721  to  1740  “ 

2 

3 

14 

8 

19 

“ 1741  to  1760  “ 

2 

1 

24 

15 

34 

“ 1761  to  1780  “ 

4 

1 

14 

9 

46 

“ 1781  to  1800  “ 

4 

10 

24 

23 

91 

“ 1801  to  1821  “ 

3 

8 

37 

34 

80 

37 

37 

146 

119 

328 

Total  number  of  Peerages  created,  667 ; of  which  388  were  created  be- 
tween 1761  and  1821. 


HOUSE  OF  LOEDS. 


231 


Crown.  We  find  in  Lord  Malmesbury’s  Diary  for  1807  this 
entry  : — “ Lord  Whitworth  and  Mr.  Heathcote  XT 
(Sir  William’s  son)  urged  me  to  apply  for  peer-  claims  to 
ages.  I told  them  truly,  there  were  no  less  than  peerages' 
fifty-three  candidates  for  peerage,  and  to  none  of  which  the 
king  would  listen.” 1 And  every  minister  since  that  time, 
has  probably  vbeen  obliged  to  resist  the  solicitations  of  not 
less  than  ten  earnest  claimants,  for  every  peerage  which  he 
has  advised  the  Crown  to  bestow.  When  Lord  Grey  was 
contemplating  the  creation  of  nearly  one  hundred  peers  in 
1832,  there  was  no  lack  of  candidates,  although  the  occasion 
was  neither  flattering  to  their  self-esteem,  nor  free  from  of- 
fensive imputations.  And,  more  recently,  another  minister 
discovered,  in  a single  year,  that  upwards  of  thirty  of  his 
supporters  were  ambitious  of  the  peerage,  as  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  their  friendship  towards  himself,  and  devotion  to  his 
party. 

With  this  large  increase  of  numbers,  the  peerage  has  un- 
dergone further  changes,  no  less  remarkable,  in  changes  in 
its  character  and  composition.  It  is  no  longer  a ^nCoftheSi" 
council  of  the  magnates  of  the  land,  — the  terri-  Peerage, 
torial  aristocracy,  the  descendants  or  representatives  of  the 
barons  of  the  olden  time  ; but  in  each  successive  age,  it  has 
assumed  a more  popular  and  representative  character.  Men 
who  have  attained  the  first  eminence  in  war  and  diplomacy, 
at  the  bar  or  in  the  senate,  — men  wisest  in  council,  and 
most  eloquent  in  debate,  — have  taken  their  place  in  it's  dis- 
tinguished roll ; and  their  historic  names  represent  the  glories 
of  the  age  from  which  they  sprung.  Men  who  have  amassed 
fortunes  in  commerce,  or  whose  ancestors  have  enriched 
themselves  by  their  own  industry,  have  also  been  admitted 
to  the  privileged  circle  of  the  peerage.  Men  of  the  highest 
intellects,  achievements,  and  wealth,  the  peerage  has  adopted 
and  appropriated  to  itself:  men  of  secondary  pretensions,  it 
has  still  left  to  the  people. 

1 Lord  Malm.  Diary,  iv.  397. 


232 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


A body  so  constantly  changed,  and  recruited  from  all 
classes  of  society,  loses  much  of  its  distinctive 

Its  represen-  . . . 

tative  charac-  hereditary  character.  Beers  sitting  in  Barha- 
ment  by  virtue  of  an  hereditary  right,  share  their 
privilege  with  so  many,  who  by  personal  pretensions  have 
recently  been  placed  beside  them,  that  the  hereditary  prin- 
ciple becomes  divested  of  exclusive  power,  and  invidious 
distinction. 

At  the  same  time,  the  principle  of  representation  has  been 
Extension  of  largely  introduced  into  the  constitution  of  the 
tativeprinci-  House  of  Lords.  The  sixteen  representative 
Ple-  peers  of  Scotland,  elected  only  for  a Parliament ; 

the  twenty-eight  representative  peers  of  Ireland,  elected  for 
life ; and  the  four  Irish  representative  bishops,  — form  a 
body  as  numerous  as  the  entire  peerage  in  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII.  And  when  to  these  are  added  the  twenty-six 
English  bishops,  holding  their  seats  for  life,  — the  total  num- 
ber of  Lords  not  sitting  by  virtue  of  hereditary  right,  be- 
comes a considerable  element  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Upper  House.1 

In  analyzing  these  numbers,  however,  the  growing  dispro- 
portion between  the  representative  lords,  and  the 

Disproportion  r # 1 

between  he-  hereditary  peers  cannot  fail  to  be  apparent.  If 

reditary  and  . ~ 

representa-  sixteen  Scottish  peers  were  deemed  an  inadequate 
tive  peers.  representation  of  the  ancient  peerage  of  Scotland 
in  the  reign  of  Anne,  — what  are  they  now,  when  the  peer- 
age of  the  United  Kingdom  has  been  trebled  in  numbers  ? 
But  this  inequality,  — apparently  excessive,  — has  been  cor- 
Scottish  peers  rected  by  the  admission  of  Scottish  peers  to  he- 
of^reat^Brit-  reditary  seats  in  the  British  House  of  Lords.  At 
the  present  time  the  total  number  of  Scottish 
peers  amounts  to  seventy-eight,2  of  whom  no  less  than  forty, 

1 There  are  seventy-four  lords  of  Parliament  not  sitting  by  hereditary 
right. 

2 There  are  also  two  peeresses,  and  the  Prince  of  Wales,  who  is  Duke 
of  Rothesay. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


233 


— or  more  than  half,  — sit  in  Parliament  by  virtue  of  British 
peerages,  created  in  their  favor  since  the  Union. 

Great  was  the  jealousy  with  which  the  House  of  Lords  at 
first  regarded  the  admission  of  Scottish  peers  to  Their  right  to 
the  peerage  of  Great  Britain.  In  1711,  the  Duke  Sltdemed- 
of  Hamilton  was  created  Duke  of  Brandon,  of  the  peerage 
of  Great  Britain : when  the  lords  declared,  by  a majority  of 
five,  that  no  patent  of  honor  granted  to  any  peer  of  Great 
Britain  who  was  a peer  of  Scotland  at  the  time  of  the  Union, 
entitled  such  peer  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parliament,  or  to  sit 
upon  the  trial  of  peers.1  The  undoubted  prerogative  of  the 
queen  was  thus  boldly  set  aside  for  a time,  by  an  adverse 
determination  of  the  House  of  Lords. 

At  the  time  of  this  decision,  the  Duke  of  Queensberry 
was  sitting  by  virtue  of  a British  peerage,  created  Rights  of 
since  the  Union.  The  determination  of  the  Lords  Scottish  Peers 
prevented,  for  many  years,  the  direct  admission  of 
any  other  Scottish  peers  to  the  peerage  of  Great  Britain ; 
but  this  restriction  was  cleverly  evaded  by  frequent  crea- 
tions of  their  eldest  sons,  who,  having  obtained  seats  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  succeeded,  on  the  death  of  their  fathers,  to 
their  Scottish  peerages.2  At  length,  in  1782,  the  question  of 
the  disability  of  Scottish  peers  to  receive  patents  of  peerage 
in  Great  Britain,  was  referred  to  the  judges,  who  were 
unanimously  of  opinion  that  no  such  disability  had  ever 
been  created  by  the  Act  of  Union.  The  Lords,  therefore, 
reversed  the  decision  of  1711 ; and  henceforth  Scottish 
peers  were  freely  admitted  to  the  ranks  of  the  British 
peerage.3 

In  1787,  another  important  question  arose,  affecting  the 
rights  of  the  Scottish  peerage.  It  had  been  the  plain  in- 
tention of  the  Act  of  Union,  that  the  peers  of  Scotland, 

1 Lords’ Joum.  xix.  346;  Peere  Williams,  i.  582;  Burnet’s  Own  Time, 
586 ; Somerville’s  Queen  Anne,  549. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  of  Geo.  III.  ii.  412. 

3 6th  June,  1782;  Lords’  Journ.  xxxvi,  517. 


234 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


who  were  denied  a seat  in  the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain, 
when  British  s^ou^  entitled  to  representation  by  members 
peers,  their  0f  their  own  body,  subject  to  the  same  political 

rights  as  . , jo  * r 

peers  of  Scot-  conditions  as  themselves.  The  right  of  the  Crown 
to  admit  Scottish  peers  to  the  peerage  of  Great 
Britain  having  at  length  been  recognized,  the  king  exercised 
the  right  in  favor  of  the  Earl  of  Abercorn  and  the  Duke  of 
Queensberry, — both  of  whom  were  sitting,  at  that  time,  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  as  representative  peers  of  Scotland. 
That  these  noblemen,  who  now  sat  by  hereditary  right, 
should  continue  to  be  the  representatives  of  the  Scottish 
peerage,  was  a constitutional  anomaly  which  could  not  easily 
be  maintained.  As  well  might  it  have  been  contended  that 
a member  of  the  Lower  House  continued  to  represent  the 
constituents  by  whom  he  had  been  elected,  notwithstanding 
his  elevation  to  a seat  in  the  House  of  Peers.  In  1736, 
indeed,  the  Duke  of  Athol  had  inherited  the  Barony  of 
Strange,  and  had  continued  to  sit  as  a representative  peer, 
without  any  decision  of  the  House  of  Lords,  or  any  question 
being  raised  concerning  his  legal  position.  But  now  Lord 
Stormont  brought  the  matter  before  the  House  of  Lords,  in 
a clear  and  unanswerable  argument;  and  though  he  was 
boldly  opposed  by  Lord  Thurlow,  the  House  resolved  that 
the  Earl  of  Lauderdale  and  the  Duke  of  Queensberry  had 
ceased  to  sit  as  representatives  of  the  peerage  of  Scotland.1 

The  two  peers  thus  disqualified  from  sitting  as  represent- 
atives, immediately  proceeded  to  vote  as  Scottish  peers  for 
their  successors,  in  contravention  of  a resolution  of  the 
House  of  Lords  in  1708.  An  attempt  was  made  to  defend 
their  right  to  vote,  and  to  cast  doubts  upon  the  former  de- 
termination of  the  House  ; but  the  Lords  were  resolute  in 
maintaining  the  independent  rights  of  the  Scottish  peerage, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  the  Act  of  Union  ; and  directed  a 
copy  of  the  resolution  of  the  21st  of  Jan.  1708-9  to  be 
transmitted  to  the  Lord  Registrar  of  Scotland,  with  an  “ in- 
1 Lords’  Journ.  xxxvii.  594;  Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  596. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


235 


junction  to  him  that  he  do  conform  thereto ; ” and  since  that 
time  this  decision  has  been  invariably  respected.1 

Meanwhile,  the  admission  of  Scottish  peers  to  hereditary 
seats  in  the  House  of  Lords,  is  tending  to  a sin-  present  posi- 
gular  result.  At  no  distant  period,  the  Scottish  gcottishpeer- 
peerage  will  probably  become  absorbed  in  that  of  ase- 
the  United  Kingdom.  One  half  their  number  have  already 
been  absorbed : more  may  hereafter  be  admitted  to  the 
House  of  Lords ; and,  as  no  new  creations  can  be  made,  we 
may  foresee  the  ultimate  extinction  of  all  but  sixteen  Scot- 
tish peers,  not  embraced  in  the  British  peerage.  These 
sixteen  peers,  instead  of  continuing  a system  of  self-election, 
will  then  probably  be  created  hereditary  peers  of  Parlia- 
ment. The  Act  of  Union  will  have  worked  itself  out ; and 
a Parliamentary  incorporation  of  the  two  countries  will  be 
consummated,  — more  complete  than  any  which  the  most 
sanguine  promoters  of  the  Union  could,  in  their  visions  of 
the  future,  have  foreshadowed. 

A similar  absorption  of  the  Irish  peerage  into  the  peer- 
age of  the  United  Kingdom  has  also  been  observ- 

i Present  posi- 

able,  though,  by  the  terms  of  the  Act  of  Union,  tion  of  the 
the  full  number  of  one  hundred  Irish  peers  will  Insh  peerage‘ 
continue  to  be  maintained.  In  1860  there  were  one  hun- 
dred and  ninety- three  Irish  peers,2  of  whom  seventy-one 
had  seats  in  Parliament,  as  peers  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
Thus,  the  peers  of  Ireland  sitting  in  Parliament,  — includ- 
ing the  representative  peers,  - — amounted  to  ninety-nine: 

By  this  fusion  of  the  peerages  of  the  three  kingdoms,  the 
House  of  Lords  has  grown  at  once  more  national,  Fusion  of  the 
and  more  representative  in  its  character.  As  theThree°f 
different  classes  of  society  have  become  repre-  kmsdoms- 
sented  there,  so  different  nationalities  have  also  acquired  a 
wider  representation.  Nor  ought  it  to  be  overlooked  that 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  1158  (May  38th,  1787);  Lords’  Journ.  xxxvii.  709. 

2 There  is  also  one  peeress;  and  the  King  of  Hanover  is  Earl  of  Armagh 
in  the  peerage  of  Ireland. 


236 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


Scotland  and  Ireland  are  further  represented  in  the  House 
of  Lords  by  the  numerous  commoners,  of  Scottish  and  Irish 
birth,  who  have  been  raised  to  the  dignity  of  the  peerage 
for  distinguished  services,  or  other  eminent  qualifications. 

But  all  temporal  peers,  — whether  English,  Scottish,  or 
Hereditary  an^  whether  sitting  by  hereditary  right  or 

character  of  by  election,  — have  been  ennobled  in  blood,  and 
e peerage.  trangm^  their  dignities  to  their  heirs.  Hereditary 
descent  has  been  the  characteristic  of  the  peerage,  and  — 
with  the  exception  of  the  bishops  — of  the  constitution  of 
the  House  of  Lords. 

In  1856,  however,  Her  Majesty  was  advised  to  introduce 
Defects  in  the  among  the  hereditary  peers  of  the  realm,  a new 
rSdiction^of  class  of  peers,  created  for  life  only.  Well-found- 
the  Lords.  e(j  compiaints  had  been  made  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of  Lords  had 
been  exercised.  The  highest  court  of  appeal  was  often 
without  judges,  their  place  being  filled  by  peers  unlearned 
in  the  law,  who  sat  as  members  of  the  court,  without  affect- 
ing to  participate  in  its  judgments.  This  had  been  an  evil 
of  long  standing ; though  it  had  not,  until  lately,  aroused  the 
vigilance  of  suitors  and  the  public.  For  some  years  after 
the  Revolution,  there  had  not  been  a single  law-lord  in  the 
House,  — Lord  Somers  having  heard  appeals  as  Lord  Keep- 
er. When  that  distinguished  lawyer  was  at  length  admit- 
ted to  a seat  in  the  House  of  Peers,  he  was  the  only  law- 
lord.  During  the  greater  part  of  the  reigns  of  George  II. 
and  George  III.,  appeals  had  been  heard  by  Lord  Hard- 
wicke,  Lord  Mansfield,  Lord  Thurlow,  and  Lord  Eldon, 
sitting  in  judicial  solitude,  — while  two  mute,  unlearned 
lords  were  to  be  seen  in  the  background,  representing  the 
collective  wisdom  of  the  court.  In  later  times  a more  dec- 
orous performance  of  judicial  duties  had  been  exacted  by 
public  opinion  ; and  frequent  changes  of  administration 
having  multiplied  ex-chancellors,  the  number  of  law-lords 
was  greater  than  at  former  periods.  But  in  an  age  in  which 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


237 


reforms  in  the  administration  of  justice  had  become  an  im- 
portant department  of  legislation,  and  a subject  of  popular 
interest,  theoretical  improvements,  at  least,  were  demanded 
in  the  constitution  of  the  first  court  of  appeal. 

As  an  expedient  for  adding  to  the  judicial  strength  of 
the  House,  without  a permanent  increase  of  its  Life-peerages, 
numbers,  it  was  suggested  that  the  most  eminent  judges 
might  be  admitted  to  the  privilege  of  sitting  there,  for  life 
only.  The  practice  of  granting  peerages  for  life  was  not  a 
constitutional  novelty,  but  had  long  fallen  into  desuetude. 
Between  the  reigns  of  Bichard  II.  and  Henry  VI.,  several 
precedents  were  to  be  found  of  the  creation  of  life-peerages. 
Some  of  these,  however,  had  been  made,  — like  many  other 
peerages  of  that  period,  — in  full  Parliament : some  had 
been  granted  to  peers  already  entitled  to  sit  in  Parliament 
by  hereditary  right:  some  peers  so  created  had  never  sat 
in  the  House  of  Peers : one  had  been  a foreigner,  who  could 
not  claim  a seat  by  virtue  of  his  title  : ^nd,  for  upwards  of 
four  hundred  years,  there  was  no  instance  on  record,  in 
which  any  man  had  been  admitted  to  a seat  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  as  a peer  for  life.  But  there  were  Life-peerages 
many  later  instances,  in  which  ladies  had  re-  to  women- 
ceived  life-peerages.  Charles  II.  had  created  the  beautiful 
Louise  de  Querouaille,  Duchess  of  Portsmouth  for  life ; 
James  II.  had  created  Catherine  Sedley  a baroness,  by  the 
same  tenure;  George  I.  had  raised  Madame  de  Schulem- 
berg  to  the  rank  of  Duchess  of  Kendal  for  life,  and 'had 
conferred  a life-peerage  upon  her  niece ; 1 and  George  II. 
had  made  Madame  Walmoden,  Countess  of  Yarmouth  for 
life.  Between  the  reign  of  James  I.  and  that  of  George  II., 
peerages  for  life  had  been  granted  to  no  less  than  eighteen 
ladies.  But  as  the  fair  sex  are  unable  to  sit  in  Parliament, 
this  class  of  peerages  could  not  be  relied  upon,  in  support 
of  the  right  of  the  Crown  to  introduce  life-peers  into  the 
House  of  Lords. 

1 Or  reputed  daughter,  the  Countess  of  Walsingham. 


238 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


There  was,  however,  another  class  of  peerages,  whence 
a strong  argument  was  derived  in  favor  of  the 

Peerages  with  ° ° . . 

remainders  royal  prerogative.  Though  peerages  in  their  gen- 
eral character  have  been  hereditary,  — descending 
like  estates  to  the  elder  son,  — yet  peerages  have  been  con- 
tinually granted  to  persons,  with  remainder  to  collateral  rel- 
atives, or  to  the  elder  son  of  the  peer  by  a second  wife,  or  to 
the  son  of  a younger  brother,  or  other  relative  not  in  the 
direct  line  of  succession,  as  heir  at  law.  All  grants  of  this 
class  — being  governed,  not  by  the  general  law  of  descent, 
but  by  the  special  limitations  in  the  patent  — were  excep- 
tions from  the  principle  of  hereditary  succession.  The  first 
grantee  was,  in  effect,  created  a peer  for  life,  though  the 
second  grantee  became  entitled  to  the  peerage,  subject  to 
the  ordinary  rights  of  succession.  But  the  grant  of  a peer- 
age of  this  class  was  plainly  distinguishable  from  a peerage 
for  life,  as  it  provided  — though  in  an  exceptional  manner 
— for  the  duration  yf  the  dignity  beyond  the  life  of  the  first 
grantee.  It  was  indeed  maintained  that  such  peerages  af- 
forded further  evidence  against  the  legality  of  life-peerages, 
as  they  had  been  constantly  granted,  without  objection,  while 
none  of  the  latter  had  been  created  for  centuries. 

But  if  these  precedents  and  analogies  were  obsolete,  or  of 
doubtful  application,  the  legality  of  life-peerages 

Authorities  in  , _ , & J ..  T . . 

support  of  had  been  recognized  by  nearly  all  constitutional 
life-peerages.  authorities.  Lord  Coke  had  repeatedly  affirmed 
the  doctrine,  that  the  Crown  may  create  peerages  “ for  life, 
in  tail,  or  in  fee  ; ” the  learned  Selden  had  referred  to  the 
ancient  custom  without  comment ; Chief  Baron  Comyns  and 
Cruise  had  accepted  the  authority  of  Coke  as  unquestioned 
law  ; the  popular  Blackstone  had  repeated  and  enforced  it ; 1 
and,  lastly,  Lord  Redesdale’s  committee  “ On  the  dignity  of  a 

1 “ For  a man  or  woman  may  be  created  noble  for  their  own  lives,  and 
the  dignity  not  descend  to  their  heirs  at  all,  or  descend  only  to  some  par- 
ticular heirs,  as  where  a peerage  is  limited  to  a man  and  the  heirs  male  of 
his  body,  by  Elizabeth,  his  present  lady,  and  not  to  such  heirs  by  any  for- 
mer or  future  wife.”  Steph.  Blackstone,  ii.  589. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


239 


Peer,”  in  1822,  had  acknowledged  it  without  reserve.1  But- 
ler was  the  only  eminent  writer  who  had  expressed  any 
doubt  upon  the  subject.2  The  doctrine  had  also  been  gener- 
ally received  among  statesmen  as  well  as  lawyers.  Lord 
Liverpool’s  administration,  impressed  with  the  necessity  of 
improving  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords,  had,  at 
one  time,  unanimously  resolved  to  create  life-peers.  In 
1851,  the  government  of  Lord  John  Russell  had  offered  a 
life-peerage  to  Dr.  Lushington,  the  distinguished  judge  of 
the  Admiralty  Court,  who,  by  a late  statute,  had  been  de- 
nied the  privilege  of  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons.  In 
the  Devon  peerage  case,  Lord  Brougham  had  stated  from 
the  woolsack,  as  Chancellor,  that  the  Crown  had  not  only 
the  power  of  creating  a peerage  for  the  life  of  the  grantee 
himself,  but  for  the  life  of  another  person  ; and  upon  a more 
recent  occasion,  Lord  Campbell  had  laid  it  down  in  debate, 
that  the  “ Crown  might  create,  by  its  prerogative,  a peerage 
for  life,  but  not  a peerage  during  a man’s  continuance  in 
office  : that  would  require  an  enactment  of  the  three  branches 
of  the  legislature .”  3 

Relying  upon  these  precedents  and  authorities,  the  minis- 
ters advised  her  Majesty,  before  the  meeting  of  The  wensiey- 
Parliament  in  1856,  to  issue  letters- patent  to  Sir  dalePeerase- 
James  Parke,  lately  an  eminent  baron  of  the  Court  of  Ex- 
chequer, creating  him  Baron  Wensleydale  for  life.  The 
letters-patent  were  issued  ; but  the  peers  loudly  protested 
against  the  intrusion  of  a life-peer  to  sit  amongst  the  heredi- 
tary nobles  of  the  realm.  An  untimely  fit  of  the  gout  dis- 
abled Lord  Wensleydale  from  presenting  himself,  with  his 
writ  of  summons,  on  the  first  day  of  the  session ; and  on 
the  7th  of  February  Lord  Lyndhurst  proposed,  in  a mas- 
terly speech,  to  refer  his  exceptional  patent  to  the  Commit- 
tee of  Privileges. 

1 3d  Rep.  37,  38. 

2 Coke’s  Inst.,  19th  edit.,  by  Hargrave  and  Butler. 

3 Hansard’s  Debates,  June  27th,  1851,  3d  Series,  cxvii.  1312. 


240 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


Throughout  the  learned  debate  which  followed,  the  ab- 
stract prerogative  of  the  Crown  to  create  a life- 

Arguments  . 

for  and  peerage  was  scarcely  questioned  ; but  it  was  de- 
agamst  it.  nje(j  such  a peerage  conferred  any  right  to 
sit  in  Parliament.  It  was  treated  as  a mere  title  of  honor, 
giving  rank  and  precedence  to  its  possessor,  but  not  a place 
in  an  hereditary  legislative  chamber.  The  precedents  and 
authorities  in  support  of  life-peerages  were  exposed  to  a 
searching  criticism,  which  failed,  however,  to  shake  the  posi- 
tion that  the  Crown  had,  in  former  times,  introduced  life- 
peers  to  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords.  But  it  was  admitted  on 
all  sides,  that  no  such  case  had  occurred  for  upwards  of  four 
hundred  years.  Hence  arose  a most  difficult  question  of 
constitutional  law.  Had  the  ancient  prerogative  of  the 
Crown  been  lost  by  desuetude ; or  could  it  be  exercised,  if 
the  Queen  thought  fit  to  revive  it  ? The  ministers,  relying 
upon  the  legal  maxim,  u nullum  tempus  occurrit  regi”  ar- 
gued that  there  could  be  no  loss  of  prerogative  by  lapse 
of  time.  But  their  opponents  forcibly  contended  that  the 
Crown  could  not  alter  the  settled  constitution  of  the  realm. 
In  ancient  times,  — before  the  institutions  of  the  country 
had  been  established  by  law  and  usage,  — - the  Crown  had 
withheld  writs  of  summons  from  peers  who  were  unques- 
tionably entitled,  by  inheritance,  to  sit  in  Parliament : the 
Crown  had  disfranchised  ancient  boroughs  by  prerogative ; 
and  had  enfranchised  new  boroughs  by  royal  charter.  What 
would  now  be  said  of  such  an  exercise  of  the  prerogative  ? 
By  constitutional  usage,  having  the  force  of  law,  the  House 
of  Lords  had  been  for  centuries  a chamber  consisting  of 


hereditary  councillors  of  the  Crown,  while  the  House  of 
Commons  had  been  elected  by  the  suffrages  of  legally  qual- 
ified electors.  The  Crown  could  no  more  change  the  con- 
stitution of  the  House  of  Lords  by  admitting  a life-peer  to 
a seat  in  Parliament,  than  it  could  change  the  representa- 
tion of  the  people,  by  issuing  writs  to  Birkenhead  and  Sta- 
leybridge,  or  by  lowering  the  franchise  of  electors. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


241 


Passing  beyond  the  legal  rights  of  the  Crown,  the  oppo- 
nents of  life-peerages  dilated  upon  the  hazardous  conse- 
quences of  admitting  this  new  class  of  peers.  Was  it  prob- 
able that  such  peerages  would  be  confined  to  law-lords? 
If  once  recognized,  would  they  not  be  extended  to  all  per- 
sons whom  the  ministers  of  the  day  might  think  it  con- 
venient to  obtrude  upon  the  House  of  Lords  ? Might  not 
the  hereditary  peers  be  suddenly  overpowered  by  creatures 
of  the  executive  government,  — not  ennobled  on  account  of 
their  public  services,  or  other  claims  to  the  favor  of  the 
Crown,  but  appointed  as  nominees  of  ministers,  and  ready 
to  do  their  bidding  ? Nay  ! might  not  the  Crown  be  here- 
after advised  to  discontinue  the  grant  of  hereditary  peerages 
altogether,  and  gradually  change  the  constitution  of  the 
House  of  Lords  from  an  hereditary  assembly,  to  a de- 
pendent senate  nominated  for  life  only  ? Nor  were  there 
wanting  eloquent  reflections  upon  the  future  degradation  of 
distinguished  men,  whose  services  would  be  rewarded  by 
life-peerages  instead  of  by  those  cherished  honors,  which 
other  men  — not  more  worthy  than  themselves  — had  en- 
joyed the  privilege  of  transmitting  to  their  children.  Sit- 
ting as  an  inferior  caste,  among  those  whom  they  could  not 
call  their  peers,  they  would  have  reason  to  deplore  a need- 
less innovation,  which  had  denied  them  honors  to  which  they 
were  justly  entitled. 

Such  were  the  arguments  by  which  Lord  Wensleydale’s 
patent  wras  assailed.  They  were  ably  combated  Decision  of 
by  ministers ; and  it  was  even  contended  that  the  Lords- 
without  a reference  from  the  Crown,  the  Lords  had  no  right 
to  adjudicate  upon  the  right  of  a peer  to  sit  and  vote  in  their 
House ; but,  on  a division,  the  patent  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Privileges  by  a [majority  of  thirty-three.1  Af- 
ter an  inquiry  into  the  precedents,  and  more  learned  and 
ingenious  debates,  the  committee  reported,  and  the  House 
agreed,  “ that  neither  the  letters-patent,  nor  the  letters-pat- 

1 Content,  138;  not  content,  105.  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  cxl.  263. 

VOL.  i.  16 


242 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


ent  with  the  usual  writ  of  summons  issued  in  pursuance 
thereof,  can  entitle  the  grantee  to  sit  and  vote  in  Parlia- 
ment.” 1 

Some  hereditary  peers,  who  concurred  in  this  conclusion, 
may  have  been  animated  by  the  same  spirit  of  jealousy 
which,  in  1711,  had  led  their  ancestors  to  deny  the  right  of 
the  Crown  to  admit  Scottish  peers  amongst  them,  and  in 
1719  had  favored  a more  extensive  limitation  of  the  royal 
prerogative ; but  with  the  exception  of  the  Lord  Chancel- 
lor, — by  whose  advice  the  patent  had  been  made  out,  — all 
the  law-lords  of  both  parties  supported  the  resolution,  which 
has  since  been  generally  accepted  as  a sound  exposition  of 
constitutional  law.  Where  institutions  are  founded  upon 
ancient  usage,  it  is  a safe  and  wholesome  doctrine  that  they 
shall  not  be  changed,  unless  by  the  supreme  legislative  au- 
thority of  Parliament.  The  Crown  was  forced  to  submit 
to  the  decision  of  the  Lords ; and  Lord  Wensleydale  soon  af- 
terwards took  his  seat,  under  a new  patent,  as  an  hereditary 
peer  of  the  realm. 

But  the  question  of  life-peerages  was  not  immediately  set 
Further  pro-  at  rest.  A committee  of  the  Lords  having  been 
reiaMonVo11  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  appellate  jurisdiction 
life-peerages.  0f  ^at  jjousej  recommended  that  her  Majesty 
should  be  empowered,  by  statute,  to  confer  life-peerages 
upon  two  persons  who  had  served  for  five  years  as  judges, 
and  that  they  should  sit  with  the  Lord  Chancellor  as  judges 
of  appeal  and  “ deputy  speakers.”  A bill,  founded  upon 
this  recommendation,  was  passed  by  the  House  of  Lords ; 
but  after  much  discussion,  it  miscarried  in  the  House  of 
Commons.2 

In  reviewing  the  rapid  growth  of  the  temporal  peers  sit- 
Lords  spirit-  ting  in  Parliament,  it  is  impossible  not  to  be 
uaL  struck  with  the  altered  proportions  which  they 

1 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  cxl.  1152  et  seq. ; Report  of  Committee  of 
Privileges;  Clark’s  House  of  Lords’  Cases,  v.  958. 

2 Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  cxlii.  780,  899,  1059;  Ibid.,  cxliii.  428, 
583,  613. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


243 


bear  to  the  lords  spiritual,  as  compared  with  former  times. 
Before  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries  by  Henry  VIII., 
in  1539,  when  the  abbots  and  priors  sat  with  the  bishops,  the 
lords  spiritual  actually  exceeded  the  temporal  lords  in  num- 
ber. First  in  rank  and  precedence,  — superior  in  attain- 
ments, — and  exercising  high  trusts  and  extended  influence, 
— they  were  certainly  not  inferior,  in  political  weight,  to 
the  great  nobles  with  whom  they  were  associated.  Even 
when  the  abbots  and  priors  had  been  removed,  the  bishops 
alone  formed  about  one  third  of  the  House  of  Lords.  But 
while  the  temporal  lords  have  been  multiplied  since  that 
period  about  eight-fold,  the  English  bishops  sitting  in  Parlia- 
ment, have  only  been  increased  from  twenty-one  to  twenty- 
six,  — to  whom  have  been  added  the  four  Irish  bishops.  The 
ecclesiastical  element  in  our  legislature,  has  thus  become  rel- 
atively inconsiderable  and  subordinate.  Instead  of  being  a 
third  of  the  House'  of  Lords,  as  in  former  times,  it  now 
forms  less  than  a fifteenth  part  of  that  assembly : nor  is  it 
likely  to  receive  any  accession  of  strength.  When  the 
pressing  demands  of  the  Church  obtained  from  Parliament 
the  constitution  of  the  new  bishopric  of  Manchester,  care 
was  taken  that  not  even  one  spiritual  lord  should  be  added 
to  the  existing  number.  The  principle  of  admitting  a new 
bishop  to  sit  in  Parliament  was,  indeed,  conceded ; but  he 
was  allowed  that  privilege  at  the  expense  of  the  more  an- 
cient sees.  Except  in  the  case  of  the  sees  of  Canterbury, 
York,  London,  Durham,  and  Winchester,  the  bishop  last  ap- 
pointed receives  no  writ  of  summons  from  the  Crown  to  sit 
in  Parliament,  until  another  vacancy  arises.1  The  principle 
of  this  temporary  exclusion  of  the  junior  bishop,  though  at 
first  exposed  to  objections  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  has 
since  been  found  to  be  not  without  its  advantages.  It  en- 
ables a bishop  recently  inducted,  to  devote  himself  without 
interruption  to  the  labors  of  his  diocese,  while  it  relieves 

1 Bishopric  of  Manchester  Act,  10  & 11  Viet.  c.  108.  See  also  Debates, 
1844,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  on  the  St.  Asaph  and  Bangor  Dioceses’  Bill. 


244 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


him  from  the  expenses  of  a residence  in  London,  at  a time 
when  they  can  be  least  conveniently  borne. 

But,  however  small  their  numbers,  and  diminished  their 
Attempts  to  influence>  the  presence  of  the  bishops  in  Parlia- 
exciude  bish-  ment  has  often  provoked  opposition  and  remon- 

ops  from  the  mi 

House  of  strance.  This  has  probably  arisen,  more  from 
feelings  to  which  episcopacy  has  been  exposed, 
than  from  any  dispassionate  objections  to  the  participation 
of  bishops  in  the  legislation  of  the  country.  Proscribed  by 
Presbyterian  Scotland,  — ejected  from  Parliament  by  the 
English  Puritans,1  — repudiated  in  later  times,  by  every 
sect  of  dissenters,  — not  regarded  with  too  much  favor,  even 
by  all  the  members  of  their  own  Church,  — and  obnoxious, 
from  their  dignity  and  outward  pomp,  to  vulgar  jealousies, 
— the  bishops  have  had  to  contend  against  many  popular 
opinions  and  prejudices.  Nor  has  their  political  conduct, 
generally,  been  such  as  to  conciliate  public  favor.  Ordi- 
narily supporting  the  government  of  the  day,  — even  in  its 
least  popular  measures,  — leaning  always  to  authority,  — as 
churchmen,  opposed  to  change,  — and  precluded  by  their  po- 
sition, from  courting  popularity,  — it  is  not  surprising  that 
cries  have  sometimes  been  raised  against  them,  and  efforts 
made  to  pull  them  down  from  their  high  places. 

In  1834,  the  Commons  refused  leave  to  bring  in  a bill  “for 
relieving  the  bishops  of  their  legislative  and  judicial  duties 
in  the  House  of  Peers,”  by  a majority  of  more  than  two  to 
one.2  By  a much  greater  majority,  in  1836,'  they  refused  to 
affirm  66  that  the  attendance  of  the  Bishops  in  Parliament,  is 
prejudicial  to  the  cause  of  religion.”  8 And  again  in  the  fol- 
lowing year,  they  denied,  with  equal  emphasis,  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  sitting  of  the  bishops  in  Parliament  “ tends  to 
alienate  the  affections  of  the  people  from  the  Established 
Church.” 4 Since  that  time,  there  have  been  no  adverse 

1 16  Car.  I.  c.  27.  2 13th  March,  1834.  Ayes,  58;  Noes,  125. 

8 26th  April,  1836.  Ayes,  53;  Noes  180. 

4 16th  February,  1837.  Ayes,  92 ; Noes,  197. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


245 


motions  in  Parliament,  and  few  unfriendly  criticisms  else- 
where, in  relation  to  the  Parliamentary  functions  of  the 
bishops. 

Their  place  in  our  venerable  constitution  has  hitherto  been 
upheld  by  every  statesman,  and  by  nearly  all  circtimstan- 
political  parties.  At  the  same  time,  the  liberal  t^thTbish-6 
policy  of  the  legislature  towards  Roman  Catholics  °ps- 
and  Dissenters,  has  served  to  protect  the  bishops  from  much 
religious  animosity,  formerly  directed  against  the  Church,  of 
which  they  are  the  most  prominent  representatives.  Again, 
the  Church,  by  the  zeal  and  earnestness  with  which,  during 
the  last  thirty  years,  she  has  followed  out  her  spiritual  mis- 
sion, has  greatly  extended  her  own  moral  influence  among 
the  people,  and  weakened  the  assaults  of  those  who  dissent 
from  her  doctrines.  And  the  increased  strength  of  the 
Church  has  fortified  the  position  of  the  bishops.  That  they 
are  an  exception  to  the  principle  of  hereditary  right  — the 
fixed  characteristic  of  the  House  of  Lords  — is,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  many,  not  without  its  theoretical  advantages. 

The  various  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  which  have  here  been  briefly  sketched,  have  political  posi- 
considerably  affected  the  political  position  and  in-  hous^o?6 
fluence  of  that  branch  of  the  legislature.  Lords. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  peers  of  ancient  lineage  should 
have  regarded  with  jealousy,  the  continual  enlargement  of 
their  own  privileged  order.  The  proud  distinction  which  they 
enjoyed  lost  some  of  its  lustre,  when  shared  by  a larger  body. 
Their  social  preeminence,  and  the  weight  of  their  individual 
votes  in  Parliament,  were  alike  impaired  by  the  increasing 
number  of  those  whom  the  favor  of  their  sovereign  had 
made  equal  to  themselves.  These  effects,  however,  have 
been  rendered  much  less  extensive  than  might  have  been 
anticipated,  by  the  expansion  of  society,  and  by  the  operation 
of  party  in  all  political  affairs. 

But  however  the  individual  privileges  of  peers  may  have 
been  affected  by  the  multiplication  of  their  numbers,  it  is 


246 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


scarcely  to  be  questioned  that  the  House  of  Lords  has  gained 
its  enlarge  imPortance»  as  a political  institution,  by  its  enlarge- 
ment a source  ment.  Let  us  suppose,  for  a moment,  that  the  ieal- 
of  strength.  0 , . 

ousy  oi  the  peers  had  led  either  to  such  a legal 
restraint  upon  the  prerogative,  as  that  proposed  in  the  reign 
of  George  I.,  or  to  so  sparing  an  exercise  of  it,  that  the  peer- 
age had  remained  without  material  increase  since  the  acces- 
sion of  the  House  of  Hanover.  Is  it  conceivable  that  an 
order  so  limited  in  number,  and  so  exclusive  in  character, 
could  have  maintained  its  due  authority  in  the  legislature  ? 
With  the  instinctive  aversion  to  change,  which  characterizes 
every  close  corporation,  it  would  have  opposed  itself  haugh- 
tily to  the  active  and  improving  spirit  of  more  popular  in- 
stitutions. It  might  even  have  attempted  to  maintain  some 
of  its  more  invidious  privileges,  which  have  been  suffered  to 
fall  into  desuetude.  Hence  it  would  necessarily  have  been 
found  in  opposition  to  the  House  of  Commons,  the  press,  and 
public  opinion ; while  its  limited  and  unpopular  constitution 
would  have  failed  to  give  it  strength  to  resist  the  pressure  of 
adverse  forces.  But  the  wider  and  more  liberal  constitution 
which  it  has  acquired  from  increased  numbers,  and  a more 
representative  character,  has  saved  the  House  of  Lords  from 
these  political  dangers.  True  to  the  spirit  of  an  aristocracy, 
and  to  its  theoretical  uses  in  the  state,  it  has  been  slower 
than  the  House  of  Commons  in  receiving  popular  impres- 
sions. It  has  often  checked,  for  a time,  the  progressive 
policy  of  the  age  ; yet,  being  accessible  to  the  same  sym- 
pathies and  influences  as  the  other  House,  its  tardier  convic- 
tions have  generally  been  brought,  without  violence,  into 
harmony  with  public  opinion.  And  when  measures,  de- 
manded by  the  national  welfare,  have  sometimes  been  in- 
juriously retarded,  the  great  and  composite  qualities  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  — the  eminence  of  its  numerous  members, 
— their  talents  in  debate,  and  wide  local  influence,  — 1 have 
made  it  too  powerful  to  be  rudely  overborne  by  popular 
clamor. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


247 


Thus  the  expansive  growth  of  the  House  of  Lords,  — con- 
curring with  the  increased  authority  of  the  House  A . 

° # J And  suited  to 

of  Commons,  and  the  enlarged  influence  of  the  more  popular 

_ institutions. 

press,  — appears  to  have  been  necessary  for  the 
safe  development  of  our  free  institutions,  in  which  the  pop- 
ular element  has  been  continually  advancing.  The  same 
cause  has  also  tended  to  render  the  peers  more  independent 
of  the  influence  of  the  Crown.  To  that  influence  they  are 
naturally  exposed : but  the  larger  their  number,  and  the 
more  various  their  interests,  the  less  effectually  can  it  be  ex- 
ercised : while  the  Crown  is  no  longer  able  to  secure  their 
adherence  by  grants  of  land,  offices,  and  pensions. 

These  changes  in  the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Peers 
must  further  be  considered  in  their  relations  to  The  peerage 
party.  The  general  object  which  successive  min-  J^nce  to  ref" 
isters  have  had  in  view  in  creating  peers,  — apart  Party* 
from  the  reward  of  special  public  services,  — has  been  to  fa- 
vor their  own  adherents,  and  strengthen  their  Parliamentary 
interest.  It  follows  that  the  House  of  Lords  has  undergone 
considerable  changes,  from  time  to  time,  in  its  political 
composition.  This  result  has  been  the  more  remarkable 
whenever  one  party  has  enjoyed  power  for  a great  length 
of  time.  In  such  cases  the  number  of  creations  has  some- 
times been  sufficient  to  alter  the  balance  of  parties  ; or,  if 
this  cause  alone  has  not  sufficed,  it  has  been  aided  by  political 
conversions,  — the  not  uncommon  fruit  of  ministerial  pros- 
perity. The  votes  of  the  bishops  have  also  been  usually  re- 
corded with  that  party,  to  whom  they  owed  their  elevation. 
Hence  it  was  that,  on  the  accession  of  George  Entire  change 
III,,  — when  the  domination  of  the  great  Whig  of  Party  con- 
families  had  lasted  for  nearly  half  a century,  — different  pe- 
the  House  of  Lords  was  mainly  Whig.  Hence  it 
was  that,  on  the  accession  of  William  IV.,  when  the  Tory  rule 
— commenced  under  Lord  Bute,  strengthened  by  Lord  North, 
and  consolidated  by  Mr.  Pitt  — had  enjoyed  ascendency  for 
even  a longer  period,  the  House  of  Lords  was  mainly  Tory. 


248 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


Under  such  conditions  as  these,  when  a ministry,  having 
_ . established  a sure  maiority  in  the  House  of  Lords, 

Danger  from  # ° J 

this  cause  of  is  overthrown  by  an  Opposition  commanding  a 

collisions  be-  . “ 

tween  the  majority  ot  the  House  ot  Commons,  the  two  Houses 

are  obviously  in  danger  of  being  brought  into  col- 
lision. A dissolution  may  suddenly  change  the  political  char- 
acter of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  transfer  power  from  one 
party  to  another ; but  a change  in  the  political  character  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  may  be  the  work  of  half  a century.  In 
the  case  of  Whig  administrations  since  the  Reform  Act,  the 
creation  of  a majority  in  the  Upper  House,  has  been  a mat- 
ter of  peculiar  difficulty.  The  natural  sympathies  of  the 
peerage  are  conservative ; and  are  strengthened  by  age, 
property,  and  connections.  A stanch  Whig,  raised  to  the 
Upper  House,  is  often  found  a doubting,  critical,  fastidious 
partisan,  - — sometimes  an  absentee,  and  not  unfrequently  an 
opponent  of  his  own  party.  No  longer  responsible  to  con- 
stituents for  his  votes,  and  removed  from  the  liberal  associa- 
tions of  a popular  assembly,  he  gradually  throws  off  his 
political  allegiance  ; and  if  habit,  or  an  affectation  of  consis- 
tency, still  retain  him  upon  the  same  side  of  the  House,  or 
upon  the  neutral  “ cross-benches,”  his  son  will  probably  be 
found  an  acknowledged  member  of  the  Opposition.  Party 
ties,  without  patronage,  have  been  slack,  and  easily  bro- 
ken. 

While  the  influence  of  the  Crown  was  sufficiently  great  to 
The  influence  direct  the  policy  of  the  country  ; and  while  a large 
of  the  Crown  proportion  of  the  members  of  the  Lower  House 

formerly  able  r r 

to  reconcile  were  the  nominees  of  peers,  collisions  between  the 
two  Houses,  if  not  wholly  averted,  were  at  least 
easily  accommodated.  There  had  been  frequent  contests 
between  them,  upon  matters  of  privilege.  It  was  not  with- 
out protracted  struggles,  that  the  Commons  had  established 
their  exclusive  right  to  grant  supplies  and  impose  taxes.  The 
two  Houses  had  contended  violently  in  1675  concerning  the 
appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords ; they  had  contended,  with 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


249 


not  less  violence,  in  1704,  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Com- 
mons, in  matters  of  election ; they  had  quarrelled  rudely,  in 
1770,  while  insisting  upon  the  exclusion  of  strangers.  But 
upon  general  measures  of  public  policy,  their  differences  had 
been  rare  and  unimportant.  George  III.,  by  inducing  the 
Lords  to  reject  Mr.  Fox’s  India  Bill,  in  order  to  overthrow 
the  Coalition  ministry,  brought  them  into  open  collision 
with  the  Commons ; but  harmony  was  soon  restored  between 
them,  as  the  Crown  succeeded,  by  means  of  a dissolution,  in 
obtaining  a large  majority  in  the  Lower  House.  In  later 
times,  the  Lords  opposed  themselves  to  concessions  to  the 
Roman  Catholics,  and  to  amendments  of  the  Criminal  Law, 
which  had  been  approved  by  the  Commons.  For  several 
years,  neither  the  Commons  nor  the  people  were  sufficiently 
earnest,  to  enforce  the  adoption  of  those  measures : but  when 
public  opinion  could  no  longer  be  resisted,  the  Lords  avoided 
a collision  with  the  Commons,  by  acquiescing  in  measures  of 
which  they  still  disapproved.  Since  popular  opinion  has 
been  more  independently  expressed  by  the  Commons,  the 
hazard  of  such  collisions  has  been  greatly  increased.  The 
Commons,  deriving  their  authority  directly  from  the  people, 
have  increased  in  power ; and  the  influences  which  formerly 
tended  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  the  Lords,  have 
been  impaired. 

The  memorable  events  of  1831  and  1832,  arising  out  of 
the  measures  for  extending  the  representation  of  The  Reform 
the  people,  exposed  the  authority  of  the  House  of  ejected  b3y 
Lords  to  a rude  shock ; and  even  threatened  its  the  Lords- 
constitution  with  danger.  Never  since  the  days  of  Cromwell, 
had  that  noble  assembly  known  such  perils.  The  Whig  min- 
istry having,  by  a dissolution,  secured  a large  majority  of  the 
Commons  in  favor  of  their  second  Reform  Bill ; its  rejection 
by  the  Lords  was  still  certain,  if  the  Opposition  should  put 
forth  their  strength.  F or  seventy  years,  the  House  of  Lords 
had  been  recruited  from  the  ranks  of  the  Tory  party  ; and 
was  not  less  hostile  to  the  Whig  ministry,  than  to  Parliament- 


250 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


ary  reform.  The  people  had  so  recently  pronounced  their 
judgment  in  favor  of  the  Bill,  at  the  late  election,  that  it 
now  became  a question,  — who  should  prevail,  the  Lords  or 
the  Commons  ? The  answer  could  scarcely  be  doubtful. 
The  excited  people,  aroused  by  a great  cause,  and  encouraged 
by  bold  and  earnest  leaders,  were  not  likely  to  yield.  The 
Lords  stood  alone.  The  king’s  ministers,  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  the  people  were  demanding  that  the  Bill  should 
pass.  Would  the  Lords  venture  to  reject  it  ? If  they  should 
bend  to  the  rising  storm,  their  will  indeed  would  be  subdued, 
— their  independent  judgment  set  aside  : but  public  danger 
would  be  averted.  Should  they  brave  the  storm,  and  stand 
up  against  its  fury,  they  could  still  be  overcome  by  the  royal 
prerogative. 

Already,  before  the  second  reading,  no  less  than  sixteen 
new  peers  had  been  created,  in  order  to  correct,  in  some 
measure,  the  notorious  disproportion  between  the  two  parties 
in  that  house  ; but  a majority  was  still  known  to  be  adverse 
to  the  Bill.  A further  creation  of  peers,  in  order  to  insure 
the  success  of  the  measure,  was  then  in  contemplation ; but 
the  large  number  that  would  be  required  for  that  purpose, 
the  extreme  harshness  of  such  a course,  and  the  hope  — not 
ill-founded  — that  many  of  the  peers  would  yield  to  the  peril 
of  the  times,  discouraged  ministers  from  yet  advising  this  last 
resource  of  power.  The  result  was  singular.  The  peers 
hesitated,  wavered,  and  paused.  Many  of  them,  actuated  by 
fear,  by  prudence,  by  policy,  or  by  public  spirit,  refrained 
from  voting.  But  the  bishops,  — either  less  alarmed,  or  less 
sensible  of  the  imminent  danger  of  the  occasion,  — mustered 
in  unusual  force.  Twenty-two  were  present,  of  whom  twen- 
ty-one voted  against  the  Bill.  Had  they  supported  ministers, 
the  Bill  would  have  been  saved : but  now  they  had  exactly 
turned  the  scale, — as  Lord  Grey  had  warned  them  that 
they  might,  — and  the  Bill  was  lost  by  a majority  of  forty- 
one. 

The  House  of  Commons  immediately  supported  the  min- 


HOUSE  OE  LORDS. 


251 


isters  by  a vote  of  confidence : the  people  were  more  ex- 
cited than  ever ; and  the  reformers  more  deter-  , 

Ministers  sup- 

milled  to  prevail  over  the  resistance  of  the  House  ported  by  the 

1 Commons. 

of  Lords. 

Parliament  was  prorogued  merely  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
troducing another  Keform  Bill.  This  Bill  was  Reform  Bill  of 
welcomed  by  the  Commons,  with  larger  majorities  1831“2, 
than  the  last ; and  now  the  issue  between  the  two  Houses 
had  become  still  more  serious.  To  u swamp  the  House  of 
Lords  ” had,  at  length,  become  a popular  cry  ; but  at  this 
time,  not  a single  peer  was  created.  Lord  Grey,  however, 
on  the  second  reading,  while  he  declared  himself  averse  to 
such  a proceeding,  justified  its  use  in  case  of  necessity.  The 
gravity  of  the  crisis  had  shaken  the  courage  of  the  majority. 
A considerable  number  of  “ waverers,”  as  they  were  termed, 
now  showed  themselves  ; and  the  fate  of  the  Bill  was  in 
their  hands.  Some  who  had  been  previously  absent,  includ- 
ing five  bishops,  voted  for  the  Bill ; others,  who  had  voted 
against  the  former  Bill,  abstained  from  voting ; and  seven- 
teen who  had  voted  against  the  last  Bill,  actually  voted  for 
this  ! From  these  various  causes,  the  second  reading  was 
carried  by  a majority  of  nine. 

Meanwhile  it  was  well  known,  both  to  the  ministers  and 
the  people,  that  the  further  progress  of  the  meas-  The  crisis, 
ure  was  exposed  to  imminent  danger ; and  while  the  former 
were  contemplating,  with  reluctance  and  dread,  the  immedi- 
ate necessity  of  a further  creation  of  peers,  the  popular  cry 
was  raised  more  loudly  than  ever,  that  the  House  of  Lords 
must  be  “ swamped.”  Such  a cry  was  lightly  encouraged  by 
reckless  and  irresponsible  politicians  ; but  the  constitutional 
statesmen  who  had  to  conduct  the  country  through  this 
crisis,  weighed  seriously  a step  which  nothing  but  the  peril 
of  the  times  could  justify.  Lord  Brougham  — perhaps  the 
boldest  of  all  the  statesmen  concerned  in  these  events  — has 
thus  recorded  his  own  sentiments  regarding  them : — “ When 
I went  to  Windsor  with  Lord  Grey,  I had  a list  of  eighty 


252 


HtUSE  #F  LfRlS. 


creations  framed  upon  the  principles  of  making  the  least 
possible  permanent  addition  to  our  House  and  to  the  aris- 
tocracy, by  calling  up  peers’  eldest  sons,  — by  choosing  men 
without  any  families,  — by  taking  Scotch  and  Irish  peers.  I 
had  a strong  feeling  of  the  necessity  of  the  case,  in  the  very 
peculiar  circumstances  we  were  placed  in  ; but  such  was  my 
deep  sense  of  the  dreadful  consequences  of  the  act,  that  I 
much  question  whether  I should  not  have  preferred  running 
the  risk  of  confusion  that  attended  the  loss  of  the  Bill  as  it 
then  stood,  — rather  than  expose  the  constitution  to  so  im- 
minent a hazard  of  subversion.” 1 2 

No  sooner  was  the  discussion  of  the  Bill  commenced  in 
committee,  than  the  ministers  suddenly  found 

The  ministers  . . . 

advise  a crea- themselves  in  a minority  ot  thirty-five.  Now, 
tion  of  peers.  tken^  was  time,  if  ever,  for  exercising  the 

royal  prerogative ; and  accordingly  the  ministers  unani- 
mously resolved  to  advise  the  king  to  create  a sufficient  num- 
ber of  peers,  to  turn  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  Bill ; and  in 
the  event  of  his  refusal,  to  tender  their  resignation.  He  re- 
fused ; and  the  resignation  of  the  ministers  was  immediately 
tendered  and  accepted.  In  vain  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
attempted  to  form  an  administration  on  the  basis  of  a more 
moderate  measure  of  reform  : the  House  of  Commons  and 
the  people  were  firm  in  their  support  of  the  ministers  ; and 
nothing  was  left  for  the  peers,  but  submission  or  coercion. 
The  king  unwillingly  gave  his  consent,  in  writing,  to  the 
necessary  creation  of  peers  ; 3 but,  in  the  mean  time,  — averse 
to  an  offensive  act  of  authority,  — he  successfully  exerted  his 
personal  influence  with  the  peers,  to  induce  them  to  desist 

1 Lord  Brougham’s  Political  Philosophy,  iii.  308.  The  British  Consti- 
tution, 1861,  p.  270. 

2 151  and  116. 

8 “ The  king  grants  permission  to  Earl  Grey,  and  to  his  chancellor,  Lord 
Brougham,  to  create  such  a number  of  peers  as  will  be  sufficient  to  insure 
the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill,  — first  calling  up  peers’  eldest  sons.  Wil- 
liam R.  Windsor,  May  17th,  1832.”  — Roebuck's  Hist,  of  the  Whig  Min- 
istry, ii.  331-333. 


H(#USE  Of  LORDS. 


253 


from  farther  opposition.1  The  greater  part  of  the  Opposi- 
tion peers  absented  themselves ; and  the  memorable  Reform 
Bill  was  soon  passed  through  all  its  further  stages.  The 
prerogative  was  not  exercised ; but  its  efficacy  was  not  less 
signal  in  overcoming  a dangerous  resistance  to  the  popular 
will,  than  if  it  had  been  fully  exerted ; while  the  House  of 
Lords  — humbled,  indeed,  and  its  influence  shaken  for  a time 
— was  spared  the  blow  which  had  been  threatened  to  its 
dignity  and  independence. 

At  no  period  of  our  history,  has  any  question  arisen  of 
greater  constitutional  importance  than  this  pro-  0pinion  of the 
posed  creation  of  peers.  The  peers  and  the  Tory  puke  of  wei- 
party  viewed  it  with  consternation.  “ If  such  pro- 
jects,” said  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  “can  be  carried  into 
execution  by  a minister  of  the  Crown  with  impunity,  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  constitution  of  this  House,  and  of  this 
country,  is  at  an  end.  I ask,  my  lords,  is  there  any  one 
blind  enough  not  to  see  that  if  a minister  can  with  impunity 
advise  his  sovereign  to  such  an  unconstitutional  exercise  of 
his  prerogative,  as  to  thereby  decide  all  questions  in  this 
House,  there  is  absolutely  an  end  put  to  the  power  and  ob- 
jects of  deliberation  in  this  House,  and  an  end  to  all  just 
and  proper  means  of  decision.  . . . ? And,  my  lords,  my 
opinion  is,  that  the  threat  of  carrying  this  measure  of  creat- 
ing peers  into  execution,  if  it  should  have  the  effect  of  in- 
ducing noble  lords  to  absent  themselves  from  the  House,  or 
to  adopt  any  particular  line  of  conduct,  is  just  as  bad  as  its 
execution  ; for,  my  lords,  it  does  by  violence  force  a decision 
on  this  House,  and  on  a subject  on  which  this  House  is  not 
disposed  to  give  such  a decision.”  2 

He  was  finely  answered  by  Lord  Grey : “ I ask  what 
would  be  the  consequences  if  we  were  to  suppose  opinion  of 
that  such  a prerogative  did  not  exist,  or  could  not  Earl  Grey> 
be  constitutionally  exercised  ? The  Commons  have  a con- 

1 See  his  Circular  Letter,  supra,  p.  124 ; and  infra,  Chapter  VI. 

2 May  17th,  1832.  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  xii.  995. 


254 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


trol  over  the  power  of  the  Crown,  by  the  privilege,  in  ex- 
treme cases,  of  refusing  the  supplies ; and  the  Crown  has, 
by  means  of  its  power  to  dissolve  the  House  of  Commons,  a 
control  upon  any  violent  and  rash  proceedings  on  the  part  of 
the  Commons  ; but  if  a majority  of  this  House  is  to  have  the 
power,  whenever  they  please,  of  opposing  the  declared  and 
decided  wishes  both  of  the  Crown  and  the  people,  without 
any  means  of  modifying  that  power,  — then  this  country  is 
placed  entirely  under  the  influence  of  an  uncontrollable  oli- 
garchy. I say,  that  if  a majority  of  this  House  should  have 
the  power  of  acting  adversely  to  the  Crown  and  the  Com- 
mons, and  was  determined  to  exercise  that  power  without 
being  liable  to  check  or  control,  the  constitution  is  completely 
altered,  and  the  government  of  this  country  is  not  a limited 
monarchy : it  is  no  longer,  my  lords,  the  Crown,  the  Lords 
and  the  Commons,  but  a House  of  Lords,  — a separate  oli- 
garchy, — governing  absolutely  the  others.’’ 1 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  although  Parliament  is  said 
a creation  of  to  be  dissolved,  a dissolution  extends,  in  fact,  no 
toTtcfa cS-"  further  than  to  the  Commons.  The  peers  are  not 
solution.  affected  by  it, — no  change  can  take  place  in  the 
constitution  of  their  body,  except  as  to  a small  number  of 
Scotch  representative  peers.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  House 
of  Lords  is  concerned,  a creation  of  peers  by  the  Crown,  on 
extraordinary  occasions,  is  the  only  equivalent  which  the 
constitution  has  provided,  for  the  change  and  renovation  of 
the  House  of  Commons  by  a dissolution.  In  no  other  way 
can  the  opinions  of  the  House  of  Lords  be  brought  into  har- 
mony with  those  of  the  people.  In  ordinary  times  the  House 
of  Lords  has  been  converted  gradually  to  the  political  opin- 
ions of  the  dominant  party  in  the  state,  by  successive  crea- 
tions ; but  when  a crisis  arises,  in  which  the  party,  of  whose 
sentiments  it  is  the  exponent,  is  opposed  to  the  majority  of 
the  House  of  Commons  and  the  country,  it  must  either  yield 
to  the  pressure  of  public  opinion,  or  expose  itself  to  the 
1 May  17th,  1832.  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  xii.  1006. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


255 


hazard  of  a more  sudden  conversion.  Statesmen  of  all  par- 
ties would  condemn  such  a measure,  except  in  cases  of  grave 
and  perilous  necessity  ; but,  should  the  emergency  be  such 
as  to  demand  it,  it  cannot  be  pronounced  unconstitutional. 

It  was  apprehended  that,  by  this  moral  coercion,  the  legit- 
imate influence  of  the  peers  would  be  impaired,  position  of 
and  their  independence  placed  at  the  mercy  of  since  theSRe- 
any  popular  minister,  supported  by  a majority  of  form  Act< 
the  House  of  Commons.  To  record  the  fiats  of  the  Lower 
House,  — sometimes,  perhaps,  with  unavailing  protests,  — 
sometimes  with  feeble  amendments,  — would  now  be  their 
humble  office.  They  were  cast  down  from  their  high  place  in 
the  legislature,  — their  ancient  glories  were  departed.  Hap- 
pily, these  forebodings  have  not  since  been  justified.  The 
peers  had  been  placed,  by  their  natural  position,  in  opposi- 
tion to  a great  popular  cause  ; and  had  yielded,  at  last,  to  a 
force  which  they  could  no  longer  resist.  Had  they  yielded 
earlier,  and  with  a better  grace,  they  might  have  shared  in 
the  popular  triumph.  Again  and  again  the  Commons  had 
opposed  themselves  to  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  or  to  pop- 
ular opinion,  and  had  been  overcome  ; yet  their  permanent 
influence  was  not  impaired.  And  so  was  it  now  with  the 
Lords.  The  Commons  may  be  overborne  by  a dissolution,  — 
the  Lords  by  a threatened  creation  of  peers,  — the  Crown 
by  withholding  the  supplies ; and  all  alike  must  bow  to  the 
popular  will,  when  constitutionally  expressed. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  Lords  attests  their  .undi- 
minished influence  since  the  Reform  Act.  That  Their  inde- 
measure has  unquestionably  increased  the  author-  Pe6dence- 
ity  of  the  House  of  Commons.  But  the  Lords  have  not 
shown  themselves  less  independent  in  their  judgment,  or  less 
free  in  their  legislative  action.  It  had  previously  been  their 
practice,  not  so  much  to  originate  legislation,  and  to  direct 
the  policy  of  the  country,  as  to  control,  to  amend,  and  to 
modify  measures  received  from  the  Commons ; and  in  that 
function,  they  have  since  labored  with  as  much  freedom  as 


256 


HOUSE  OF  LOKDS. 


ever.  In  1835  and  1836,  the  Commons  maintained  that  the 
principle  of  appropriating  the  surplus  revenues  of  the  Church 
of  Ireland,  was  essential  to  the  settlement  of  the  question  of 
Irish  tithes.  Yet  the  Lords,  by  their  determined  resistance 
to  this  principle,  obliged  the  Commons,  and  the  ministers 
who  had  fought  their  way  into  office  by  its  assertion,  defini- 
tively to  abandon  it.  They  exercised  an  unconstrained  judg- 
ment in  their  amendments  to  the  English  Municipal  Reform 
Bill,  which  the  Commons  were  obliged  reluctantly  to  accept. 
They  dealt  with  the  bills  for  the  reform  of  the  Irish  corpora- 
tions, with  equal  freedom.  For  four  sessions  their  amend- 
ments,— wholly  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  legisla- 
tion asserted  by  the  Commons,  — led  to  the  abandonment  of 
those  measures.  And  at  length  they  forced  the  Commons 
to  accept  amendments,  repugnant  to  the  policy  for  which 
they  had  been  contending.  Again,  they  resisted,  for  several 
years,  the  removal  of  the  Jewish  disabilities,  — a measure 
approved  by  the  settled  judgment  of  the  Commons  and  the 
people ; and  obliged  the  advocates  of  religious  liberty  to  ac- 
cept, at  last,  an  unsatisfactory  compromise.  But  these  ex- 
amples of  independence  are  thrown  into  the  shade  by  their 
proceedings  in  1860,  when,  — treading  upon  the  forbidden 
ground  of  taxation,  they  rejected  a Bill  which  the  Commons 
had  passed,  — as  part  of  the  financial  arrangements  of  the 
year,  — for  repealing  the  duties  upon  paper.  The  contro- 
verted question  of  privilege  involved  in  this  vote,  will  be 
touched  upon  hereafter ; 1 but  here  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
Commons  have  ever  been  most  jealous  of  their  exclusive 
rights,  in  matters  of  supply  and  taxation ; and  that  their 
jealousy  has  been  wisely  respected  by  the  Lords.  But,  find- 
ing a strong  support  in  the  Commons,  — an  indifferent  and 
inert  public  opinion,  — much  encouragement  from  an  influen- 
tial portion  of  the  press,  — and  a favorable  state  of  parties, 
— the  Lords  were  able  to  defy  at  once  the  government 
and  the  Commons.  There  had  been  times,  when  such  defi- 
1 Chapter  VII.  p.  473. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


257 


ance  would  have  been  resented  and  returned ; but  now  the 
Lords,  rightly  estimating  their  own  strength,  and  the  causes 
by  which  retaliation  on  the  part  of  the  Commons  was  re- 
strained, overruled  the  ministers  of  the  Crown  and  the  Com- 
mons, on  a question  of  finance,  and,  by  their  single  vote,  con- 
tinued a considerable  tax  upon  the  people.  The  most  zeal- 
ous champion  of  the  independence  of  the  peers,  in  1832, 
would  not  then  have  counselled  so  hazardous  an  enterprise. 
Still  less  would  he  have  predicted  that  it  would  be  success- 
fully accomplished,  within  thirty  years  after  the  passing  of 
the  Reform  Act. 

In  short,  though  the  Lords  were  driven,  in  1832,  from  an 
indefensible  position,  which  they  had  held  with  too  stubborn 
a persistence,  they  have  since  maintained  their  independence, 
and  a proper  weight  in  the  legislature. 

As  a legislative  body,  the  Lords  have  great  facilities  for 
estimating  the  direction  and  strength  of  public 

V ciniRgG- 

opinion.  Nearly  every  measure  has  been  fully  ground  of  the 
discussed,  before  they  are  called  upon  to  consider 
it.  Hence  they  are  enabled  to  judge,  at  leisure,  of  its  merits, 
its  defects,  and  its  popularity.  If  the  people  are  indifferent 
to  its  merits,  they  can  safely  reject  it  altogether : if  too  pop- 
ular, in  principle,  to  be  so  dealt  with,  they  may  qualify,  and 
perhaps  neutralize  it  by  amendments,  without  any  shock  to 
public  feeling. 

At  the  same  time  they  are  able,  by  their  debates,  to  exer- 
cise an  extensive  influence  upon  the  convictions  of  the  peo- 
ple. Sitting  like  a court  of  review  upon  measures  originat- 
ing in  the  Lower  House,  they  can  select  from  the  whole 
armory  of  debate  and  public  discussion,  the  best  arguments, 
and  the  most  effective  appeals  to  enlightened  minds.  Nor 
have  there  ever  been  wanting  amongst  their  number,  the  first 
orators  of  their  age  and  country. 

But  with  these  means  of  influence,  the  political  weight  of 
the  House  of  Peers  has  been  much  affected  by  the  passive 
indifference  which  it  ordinarily  displays  to  the  business  of  leg- 

vol.  i.  17 


258 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


islation.  The  constitution  of  that  assembly,  and  the  social 
position  of  its  members,  have  failed  to  excite  the  spirit  and 
Small  attend-  ac^v^7  which  mark  a representative  body.  This 
ance  of  peers  is  constantly  made  apparent  by  the  small  number 

stffects  their  ^ la  j 

political  of  peers,  who  attend  its  deliberations.  Unless 
great  party  questions  have  been  under  discussion, 
the  House  has  ordinarily  presented  the  appearance  of  a se- 
lect committee.  Three  peers  may  wield  all  the  authority  of 
the  House.  Nay,  even  less  than  that  number  are  competent 
to  pass  or  reject  a law,  if  their  unanimity  should  avert  a di- 
vision, or  notice  of  their  imperfect  constitution.  Many  laws 
have,  in  fact,  been  passed  by  numbers  befitting  a committee, 
rather  than  the  whole  House.1  That  the  judgment  of  so 
small  a number  should  be  as  much  respected  as  that  of  the 
large  bodies  of  members  who  throng  the  House  of  Commons, 
can  scarcely  be  expected. 

A quorum  of  three,  — though  well  suited  for  judicial  busi- 
ness, and  not  wholly  out  of  proportion  to  the  entire  number 
of  its  members,  in  the  earlier  periods  of  its  history,  — has 
become  palpably  inadequate  for  a numerous  assembly.  That 
its  members  are  not  accountable  to  constituents,  adds  to 
their  moral  responsibilities  ; and  should  suggest  safeguards 
against  the  abuse  of  the  great  powers  which  the  constitution 
has  intrusted  to  them. 

The  indifference  of  the  great  body  of  the  peers  to  public 
business,  and  their  scant  attendance,  by  discouras;- 

Their  indiffer-  7 J ° 

ence  to  busi-  ing  the  efforts  of  the  more  able  and  ambitious 
men  amongst  them,  further  impair  the  influence  of 
the  Upper  House.  Statesmen  who  had  distinguished  them- 
selves in  the  House  of  Commons,  have  complained,  again 
and  again,  of  the  cold  apathy  by  which  their  earnest  oratory 

1 On  April  7th,  1854,  the  Testamentary  Jurisdiction  Bill  was  read  a 
third  time  by  a majority  of  two  in  a house  of  twelve.  On  the  25th  Au- 
gust, 1860,  the  Tenure  and  Improvement  of  Land  (Ireland)  Bill,  which 
had  occupied  weeks  of  discussion  in  the  Commons,  was  nearly  lost  by  a 
disagreement  between  the  Two  Houses ; the  numbers,  on  a division,  being 
seven  and  six. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


259 


has  been  checked  in  the  more  patrician  assembly.  The  en- 
couragement of  numbers,  of  ready  sympathy,  and  of  warm 
applause,  are  wanting ; and  the  disheartened  orator  is  fain 
to  adapt  his  tone  to  the  ungenial  temperament  of  his  audi- 
ence. Thus  to  discourage  public  spirit,  and  devotion  to  the 
great  affairs  of  state,  cannot  fail  to  diminish  the  political  in- 
fluence of  the  House  of  Lords. 

The  inertness  of  the  House  of  Lords  has  produced  an- 
other result  prejudicial  to  its  due  influence  in  pub- 

^ ^ Ttieir  clofor* 

lie  affairs.  It  has  generally  yielded,  with  an  indo-  ence  to  lead- 
lent  facility,  to  the  domination  of  one  or  two  of  its  ers' 
own  members,  gifted  with  the  strongest  wills.  Lord  Thur- 
low,  Lord  Eldon,  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  and  Lord  Lynd- 
hurst,  have  swayed  it,  at  different  times,  almost  with  the 
power  of  a dictator.  Such  men  had  acquired  their  activity 
and  resolution  in  a different  school  from  that  of  an  heredi- 
tary chamber  ; and  where  peers  by  hereditary  descent,  like 
the  Earl  of  Derby,  have  exercised  an  equal  sway,  they  have 
learned  how  to  lead  and  govern  men,  amidst  the  more  stir- 
ring scenes  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Every  assembly 
must  have  its  leaders  ; but  the  absolute  surrender  of  its  own 
judgment  to  that  of  a single  man,  — perhaps  of  narrow 
mind,  and  unworthy  prejudices,  — cannot  fail  to  impair  its 
moral  influence. 

Such,  then,  are  the  political  position  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  the  causes  of  its  strength  and  weak- 
ness, as  a part  of  the  legislature.  The  peerage  in  itfsociff 
is  also  to  be  regarded  in  another  aspect,  — as  the  relatl0ns* 
head  of  the  great  community  of  the  upper  classes.  It  rep- 
resents their  interests,  feelings,  and  aspirations.  Instead  of 
being  separated  from  other  ranks  in  dignified  isolation,  it  is 
connected  with  them  by  all  the  ties  of  social  life.  It  leads 
them  in  politics  : in  the  magistracy  : in  local  administration  : 
in  works  of  usefulness,  and  charity : in  the  hunting-field,  the 
banquet,  and  the  ballroom. 

The  increase  of  the  peerage  has  naturally  extended  the 


260 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS- 


social  ramifications  of  the  aristocracy.  Six  hundred  fami- 
lies ennobled,  — their  children  bearing  titles  of  nobility,  — 
The  aristoc-  allied  by  descent  or  connection  with  the  first  county 
raey.  families,  and  with  the  wealthiest  commoners  of 

other  classes,  — have  struck  their  roots  far  and  wide  into  the 
soil  of  English  society.  In  every  county  their  influence  is 
great,  — in  many,  paramount. 

The  untitled  landed  gentry,  — upheld  by  the  conservative 
The  landed  law  of  primogeniture,  — are  an  ancient  aristocracy 
gentry.  jn  themselves ; and  the  main  source  from  which 
the  peerage  has  been  recruited.  In  no  other  country  is 
there  such  a class,  — at  once  aristocratic  and  popular,  and  a 
bond  of  connection  between  the  nobles  and  the  commonalty. 

Many  of  these  have  been  distinguished  by  hereditary 
The  baronet-  titles,  — inferior  to  nobility,  and  conferring  no 
age>  political  privileges ; yet  highly  prized  as  a social 

distinction.  The  baronetage,  like  the  peerage,  has  been 
considerably  increased  during  the  last  century.  On  the 
accession  of  George  III.,  there  were  about  five  hundred 
baronets ; 1 in  1860,  they  had  been  increased  to  no  less  than 
eight  hundred  and  sixty.2  During  the  sixty  years  of  this 
reign,  the  extraordinary  number  of  four  hundred  and  ninety- 
four  baronetcies  were  created.3  Of  these  a large  number 
have  been  conferred  for  political  services ; and  by  far  the 
greater  part  are  enjoyed  by  men  of  family  and  fortune. 
Still  the  taste  for  titles  was  difficult  to  satiate. 

The  ancient  and  honorable  dignity  of  knighthood  was 
Orders  of  conferred  unsparingly  by  George  III.  upon  little 
knighthood.  men  for  i^tle  services,  until  the  title  was  wellnigh 
degraded.  After  the  king’s  escape  from  assassination  at  the 
hands  of  Margaret  Nicholson,  so  many  knighthoods  were 

1 Betham’s  Baronetage.  Gentl.  Mag.  lix.  398. 

2 Viz.,  six  hundred  and  seventy-four  baronets  of  Great  Britain,  one  hun- 
dred and  eleven  baronets  of  Scotland  and  Nova  Scotia,  and  seventy-five 
of  Ireland. 

8 This  number  is  from  1761  to  1821;  from  a paper  prepared  by  the  late 
Mr.  Pulman,  Clarencieux  King-at-Arms. 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


261 


conferred  on  persons  presenting  congratulatory  addresses  to 
the  Crown,  that  “ a knight  of  Peg  Nicholson’s  order  ” be- 
came a byword.  The  degradation  of  knighthood  by  the 
indiscriminate  liberality  of  the  Crown  in  granting  it,  contin- 
ued until  a recent  time. 

Still  there  were  not  knighthoods  enough;  and  in  1783  the 
king  instituted  the  Order  of  St.  Patrick.  Scotland  had  its 
most  ancient  Order  of  the  Thistle : but  no  order  of  knight- 
hood had,  until  that  time,  been  appropriated  to  Ireland. 
The  Hanoverian  Guelphic  Order  of  Knighthood  had  also 
been  opened  to  the  ambition  of  Englishmen  ; and  William 
IV.,  during  his  reign,  added  to  its  roll,  a goodly  company  of 
English  knights. 

The  Order  of  the  Bath,  originally  a military  order,  was 
enlarged  in  1815  ; and  again  in  1847,  the  queen  added  a 
civil  division  to  the  order,  to  comprise  such  persons  as  by 
their  personal  services  to  the  Crown,  or  by  the  performance 
of  public  duties,  have  merited  the  royal  favor.1 

Besides  these  several  titled  orders,  may  be  noticed  officers 
enjoying  naval  and  military  rank,  whose  numbers  other  classes 
were  extraordinarily  augmented  by  the  long  war  thJ^ristoc^ 
with  France,  and  by  the  extension  of  the  British  racF* 
possessions  abroad.  Men  holding  high  offices  in  the  state, 
the  church,  the  law,  the  universities,  and  other  great  incor- 
porations, have  also  associated  their  powers  and  influence 
with  those  of  the  nobility. 

The  continual  growth  and  accumulation  of  property  have 

been  a source  of  increasing  strength  to  the  Brit-  Wealth  favor 

ish  nobles.  Wealth  is,  in  itself,  an  aristocracy,  able  to  the 
T , .ii  , ...  n aristocracy. 

It  may  desire  to  rival  the  nobility  oi  a country, 
and  even  to  detract  from  its  glory.  But  in  this  land  of  old 
associations,  it  seeks  only  to  enjoy  the  smiles  and  favors  of 
the  aristocracy,  — craves  admission  to  its  society,  — aspires 
to  its  connection,  — and  is  ambitious  of  its  dignities.  The 
learned  professions,  commerce,  manufactures,  and  public 
1 Letters-Patent,  24th  May,  1847 ; London  Gazette,  p.  1951. 


262 


HOUSE  OF  LORDS. 


employments  have  created  an  enormous  body  of  persons  of 
independent  income  ; some  connected  with  the  landed  gentry, 
others  with  the  commercial  classes.  All  these  form  part  of 
the  independent  “ gentry.”  They  are  spread  over  the  fair- 
est parts  of  the  country ; and  noble  cities  have  been  built  for 
their  accommodation.  Bath,  Cheltenham,  Leamington,  and 
Brighton  attest  their  numbers  and  their  opulence.1  With 
much  social  influence  and  political  weight,  they  form  a strong 
outwork  of  the  peerage,  and  uphold  its  ascendency  by  moral 
as  well  as  political  support. 

The  professions  lean,  as  a body,  on  the  higher  ranks  of 
The  profes-  society.  The  Church  is  peculiarly  connected  with 
sions.  the  ianded  interest.  Everywhere  the  clergy  cleave 
to  power ; and  the  vast  lay  patronage  vested  in  the  pro- 
prietors of  the  soil,  draws  close  the  bond  between  them  and 
the  Church.  The  legal  and  medical  professions,  again,  being 
mainly  supported  by  wealthy  patrons,  have  the  same  political 
and  social  interests. 

How  vast  a community  of  rank,  wealth,  and  intelligence 
do  these  several  classes  of  society  constitute  ! The  House 
of  Lords,  in  truth,  is  not  only  a privileged  body,  but  a great 
representative  institution,  — standing  out  as  the  embodiment 
of  the  aristocratic  influence,  and  sympathies  of  the  country. 


1 Bath  has  been  termed  the  “ City  of  the  Three-per-cent  Consols.” 


REPRESENTATIVE  SYSTEM. 


263 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  House  of  Commons:  — Nomination  Boroughs:  — Various  and  limited 
Rights  of  Election : — Bribery  at  Elections : — Sale  of  Seats : — Govern- 
ment influence  in  large  Towns:  — Revenue  Officers  disfranchised:  — 
Vexatious  Contests  in  Cities.  — Representation  of  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
— Injustice  in  the  Trial  of  Election  Petitions.  — Places  and  Pensions.  — 
Bribes  to  Members : — Shares  in  Loans,  Lotteries,  and  Contracts.  — 
Successive  Schemes  of  Parliamentary  Reform  prior  to  1830 : — The  Re- 
form Bills  of  1830-31,  1831,  and  1831-32:  — Changes  effected  in  the 
Representation,  by  the  Reform  Acts  of  1832.  — Bribery  since  1832,  and 
measures  taken  to  restrain  it. — Duration  of  Parliaments: — Vote  by 
Ballot:  — Property  Qualification.  — Later  measures  of  Parliamentary 
Reform. 

In  preceding  chapters,  the  various  sources  of  political  in- 
fluence enjoyed  by  the  Crown,  and  by  the  House  Unfaithful_ 
of  Lords,  have  been  traced  out.  Their  united  ness  of  tlie 

. . House  of 

powers  long  maintained  an.  ascendency  m the  Commons  to 

councils  and  government  of  the  state.  But  great 
as  were  their  own  inherent  powers,  the  main  support  of  that 
ascendency  was  found  among  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple, in  the  House  of  Commons.  If  that  body  had  truly 
represented  the  people,  and  had  been  faithful  to  its  trust,  it 
would  have  enjoyed  an  authority  equal  at  least,  if  not  supe- 
rior, to  that  of  the  Crown  and  the  House  of  Lords  com- 
bined. 

The  theory  of  an  equipoise  in  our  legislature,  however, 
had  been  distorted  in  practice  ; and  the  House  of  , 

r 7 Its  depend- 

Commons  was  at  once  dependent  and  corrupt,  ence  and  cor- 
The  Crown,  and  the  dominant  political  families 
who  wielded  its  power,  readily  commanded  a majority  of  that 
assembly.  A large  proportion  of  the  borough  members  were 


264 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


the  nominees  of  peers  and  great  landowners ; or  were  mainly 
returned  through  the  political  interest  of  those  magnates. 
Many  were  the  nominees  of  the  Crown ; or  owed  their  seats 
to  government  influence.  Rich  adventurers,  — having  pur- 
chased their  seats  of  the  proprietors,  or  acquired  them  by 
bribery,  — supported  the  ministry  of  the  day,  for  the  sake 
of  honors,  patronage,  or  court  favor.  The  county  members 
were  generally  identified  with  the  territorial  aristocracy. 
The  adherence  of  a further  class  was  secured  by  places  and 
pensions  : by  shares  in  loans,  lotteries,  and  contracts  ; and 
even  by  pecuniary  bribes. 

v,sThe  extent  to  which  these  various  influences  prevailed, 
and  their  effect  upon  the  constitution  of  the  legislature,  are 
among  tfee.most  instructive  inquiries  of  the  historian. 

The  representative  system  had  never  aimed  at  theoretical 
perfection ; but  its  general  design  was  to  assemble 

Defects  of  the  r p & l ° 

representa-  representatives  from  the  places  best  able  to  con- 
tive  sy»tem.  ajqs  an(j  subsidies,  for  the  service  of  the 

Crown.  This  design  would  naturally  have  allotted  members 
to  counties,  cities,  and  boroughs,  in  proportion  to  their  popu- 
lation, wealth,  and  prosperity  ; and  though  rudely  carried 
into  effect,  it  formed  the  basis  of  representation,  in  early 
times.  But  there  were  few  large  towns  : — the  population 
was  widely  scattered  : — industry  was  struggling  with  un- 
equal success  in  different  places ; and  oppressed  burgesses, 
— so  far  from  pressing  their  fair  claims  to  representation,  — 
were  reluctant  to  augment  their  burdens,  by  returning  mem- 
bers to  Parliament.  Places  were  capriciously  selected  for 
that  honor  by  the  Crown,  — and  sometimes  even  by  the 
sheriff,1  — and  were,  from  time  to  time,  omitted  from  the 
writs.  Some  small  towns  failed  to  keep  pace  with  the  grow- 
ing prosperity  of  the  country,  and  some  fell  into  decay ; and 
in  the  mean  time,  unrepresented  villages  grew  into  places  of 
importance.  Hence  inequalities  in  the  representation  were 
continually  increasing.  They  might  have  been  redressed  by 
1 Glanville’s  Reports,  Pref.  v. 


NOMINATION  BOROUGHS. 


265 


a wise  exercise  of  the  ancient  prerogative  of  creating  and 
disfranchising  boroughs;  but  the  greater  part  of  those  created 
between  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Charles  II.  were  in- 
considerable places,  which  afterwards  became  notorious  as 
nomination  boroughs.1  From  the  reign  of  Charles  II., — 
when  this  prerogative  was  superseded,  — the  growing  in- 
equalities in  the  representation  were  left  wholly  without  cor- 
rection. 

From  these  causes,  an  electoral  system  had  become  estab- 
lished, — wholly  inconsistent  with  any  rational  theory  of 
representation.  Its  defects,  — originally  great,  and  aggra- 
vated by  time  and  change,  — had  attained  monstrous  propor- 
tions in  the  middle  of  the  last  century. 

The  first  and  most  flagrant  anomaly  was  that  of  nomina- 
tion boroughs.  Some  of  these  boroughs  had  been,  Nomination 
from  their  first  creation,  too  inconsiderable  to borouglls- 
aspire  to  independence  ; and  being  without  any  importance 
of  their  own,  looked  up  for  patronage  and  protection  to  the 
Crown,  and  to  their  territorial  neighbors.  The  influence  of 
the  great  nobles  over  such  places  as  these  was  acknowledged, 
and  exerted  so  far  back  as  the  fifteenth  century.2  It  was 
freely  discussed,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  ; when  the  House 
of  Commons  was  warned,  with  a wise  foresight,  lest  “ Lords’ 
letters  shall  from  henceforth  bear  all  the  sway.”  3 As  the 
system  of  parliamentary  government  developed  itself,  such 
interest  became  more  and  more  important  to  the  nobles  and 
great  landowners,  who  accordingly  spared  no  pains  to  extend 
it ; and  the  insignificance  of  many  of  the  boroughs,  and  a 
limited  and  capricious  franchise,  gave  them  too  easy  a con- 
quest. Places  like  Old  Sarum,  with  fewer  inhabitants  than 
an  ordinary  hamlet,  avowedly  returned  the  nominees  of  their 

1 One  hundred  and  eighty  members  were  added  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, by  royal  charter,  between  the  reigns  of  Henry  VIII.  and  Charles  II. 
Glanville’s  Reports,  cii. 

2 Paston  Letters,  ii.  103. 

3 Debate  on  the  Bill  for  the  validity  of  burgesses  not  resiant,  19th  April, 
1571;  D’Ewes  Joum.  168-171. 


266 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


proprietors.1  In  other  boroughs  of  more  pretensions  in 

respect  of  population  and  property,  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants enjoying  the  franchise  was  so  limited,  as  to  bring  the 
representation  under  the  patronage  of  one  or  more  persons 
of  local  or  municipal  influence. 

Not  only  were  the  electors  few  in  number ; but  partial 
TT  . ^ and  uncertain  rights  of  election  prevailed  in  differ- 

Vanous  and  ° r 

limited  rights  ent  boroughs.  The  common-law  right  of  election 

of  election.  . , ° . ..  ° . 

was  m the  inhabitant  householders  resident  withm 
the  borough  ; 2 but,  in  a large  proportion  of  the  boroughs, 
peculiar  customs  prevailed,  by  which  this  liberal  franchise 
was  restrained.  In  some,  indeed,  popular  rights  were  en- 
joyed by  custom  ; and  all  inhabitants  paying  u scot  and  lot,” 

— or  parish  rates,  — or  all  u potwallers,”  — being  persons 
furnishing  their  own  diet,  whether  householders  or  lodgers, 

— were  entitled  to  vote.  In  others,  none  but  those  holding 
lands  by  burgage-tenure  had  the  right  of  voting ; in  several, 
none  but  those  enjoying  corporate  rights  by  royal  charter. 
In  many,  these  different  rights  wTere  combined,  or  qualified 
by  exceptional  conditions. 

Bights  of  election,  so  uncertain  and  confused,  were  founded 
Rights  of  elec-  uPon  last  determinations  of  the  House  of  Cona- 

tion deter-  m0ns,  which,  — however  capricious,  and  devoid  of 

mined  by  the  77  L 

House  of  settled  principles,  — had  a general  tendency  to 
restrict  the  ancient  franchise,  and  to  vest  it  in  a 
more  limited  number  of  persons.3 

In  some  of  the  corporate  towns  the  inhabitants  paying  scot 
and  lot,  and  freemen,  were  admitted  to  vote  ; in  some,  the 
freemen  only ; and  in  many,  none  but  the  governing  body  of 
the  corporation.  At  Buckingham,  and  at  Bewdley,  the  right 
of  election  was  confined  to  the  bailiff  and  twelve  burgesses  : 

1 Pari.  Return,  Sess.  1831-32,  No.  92. 

2 Com.  Dig.  iv.  288.  Glanville’s  Reports. 

3 Glanville’s  Reports;  Determinations  of  the  House  of  Commons  con- 
cerning Elections,  8vo.,  1780;  Introduction  to  Merewether  and  Stephens, 
History  of  Boroughs;  Male’s  Election  Law,  289,  317;  Luders’  Election 
Reports,  &c. 


BRIBERY  AT  ELECTIONS. 


267 


at  Bath,  to  the  mayor,  ten  aldermen,  and  twenty-four  com- 
mon-coun oilmen  : at  Salisbury,  to  the  mayor  and  corpora- 
tion, consisting  of  fifty-six  persons.  And  where  more  popular 
rights  of  election  were  acknowledged,  there  were  often  very 
few  inhabitants  to  exercise  them.  Gatton  enjoyed  a liberal 
franchise.  All  freeholders  and  inhabitants  paying  scot  and 
lot  were  entitled  to  vote,  but  they  only  amounted  to  seven. 
At  Tavistock,  all  freeholders  rejoiced  in  the  franchise,  but 
there  were  only  ten.  At  St.  Michael,  all  inhabitants  paying 
scot  and  lot  were  electors,  but  there  were  only  seven.1 

In  1793,  the  Society  of  the  friends  of  the  people  were  pre- 
pared to  prove  that  in  England  and  Wales  seventy  Nmnber  of 
members  were  returned  by  thirty -five  places,  in  small  bor- 
which  there  were  scarcely  any  electors  at  all ; that  oushs* 
ninety  members  were  returned  by  forty-six  places  with  less 
than  fifty  electors ; and  thirty-seven  members  by  nineteen 
places,  having  not  more  than  one  hundred  electors.2  Such 
places  were  returning  members,  while  Leeds,  Birmingham, 
and  Manchester  were  unrepresented ; and  the  members 
whom  they  sent  to  Parliament,  were  the  nominees  of  peers 
and  other  wealthy  patrons.  < No  abuse  was  more  flagrant 
than  the  direct  control  of  peers,  over  the  constitution  of  the 
Lower  House.  The  Duke  of  Norfolk  was  represented  by 
eleven  members  ; Lord  Lonsdale  by  nine  ; Lord  Darlington 
by  seven ; the  Duke  of  Rutland,  the  Marquess  of  Bucking- 
ham, and  Lord  Carrington,  each  by  six.3  Seats  were  held, 
in  both  Houses  alike,  by  hereditary  right. 

Where  the  number  of  electors  in  a borough  was  sufficient 
to  insure  their  independence,  in  the  exercise  of  the  Bribery  at 
franchise,  they  were  soon  taught  that  their  votes  elections- 
would  command  a price ; and  thus,  where  nomination  ceased, 
the  influence  of  bribery  commenced. 

Bribery  at  elections  has  long  been  acknowledged  as  one 

1 Pari.  Return,  Sess.  1831-32,  No.  92. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxx.  789. 

3 Oldfield’s  Representative  Hist.  vi.  286. 


268 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


of  the  most  shameful  evils  of  our  constitutional  government. 
Though  not  wholly  unknown  in  earlier  times,  it  appears,  — 
like  too  many  other  forms  of  corruption,  — to  have  first  be- 
come a systematic  abuse  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.1  The 
Revolution,  by  increasing  the  power  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, served  to  enlarge  the  field  of  bribery  at  elections.  As 
an  example  of  the  extent  to  which  this  practice  prevailed,  it 
was  alleged  that  at  the  Westminster  election,  in  1695,  Sir 
Walter  Clarges,  an  unsuccessful  candidate,  expended  2000/. 
in  bribery  in  the  course  of  a few  hours.2 

These  notorious  scandals  led  to  the  passing  of  the  Act  7 
William  III.  c.  4.  Bribery  had  already  been  rec- 

The  Bribery  , J J 

Act  of  wii-  ognized  as  an  offence,  by  the  common  law  ; 3 and 
had  been  condemned  by  resolutions  of  the  House 
of  Commons  ; 4 but  this  was  the  first  statute  to  restrain  and 
punish  it.  This  necessary  measure,  however,  was  designed 
rather  to  discourage  the  intrusion  of  rich  strangers  into  the 
political  preserves  of  the  landowners,  than  for  the  general 
repression  of  bribery.  It  seems  to  have  had  little  effect ; for 
Davenant,  writing  soon  afterwards,  spoke  of  “ utter  strangers 
making  a progress  through  England,  endeavoring  by  very 
large  sums  of  money  to  get  themselves  elected.  It  is  said 
there  are  known  brokers  who  have  tried  to  stock-job  elec- 
tions upon  the  Exchange ; and  that  for  many  boroughs  there 
was  a stated  price.”  5 An  act  of  Parliament  was  not  likely 
to  touch  the  causes  of  such  corruption.  The  increasing  com- 
merce of  the  country  had  brought  forward  new  classes  of 
men,  who  supplied  their  want  of  local  connections,  by  the  un- 
scrupulous use  of  riches.  Political  morality  may  be  elevated 

1 Macaulay’s  Hist.  i.  236. 

2 Ibid.  iv.  615. 

3 Burr.  iii.  1235, 1388;  Dougl.  iv.  294;  Male’s  Election  Law,  339-345. 

4 Com.  Journ.  ix.  411,  517. 

5 Essay  on  the  Balance  of  Power;  Davenant’s  Works,  iii.  326,  328.  See 
also  Pamphlets,  “Freeholder’s  Plea  against  Stock-jobbing  Elections  of 
Parliament  Men;  ” “ Considerations  upon  Corrupt  Elections  of  Members  to 
serve  in  Parliament,”  1701. 


BRIBERY  AT  ELECTIONS. 


269 


by  extended  liberties  : but  bribery  has  everywhere  been  the 
vice  of  growing  wealth.1 

The  prizes  to  be  secured  through  seats  in  Parliament  dur- 
ing the  corrupt  administrations  of  Walpole  and  Pelham, 
further  encouraged  the  system  of  bribery ; and  early  in  the 
reign  of  George  III.  its  notoriety  became  a public  scandal. 

The  very  first  election  of  this  reign,  in  1761,  was  signalized 
by  unusual  excesses.  Never  perhaps  had  bribery  General  elec- 
been  resorted  to  with  so  much  profusion.2 3  One  tl0u  m 1761‘ 
class  of  candidates,  now  rapidly  increasing,  consisted  of  men 
who  had  amassed  fortunes  in  the  East  and  West  The“Na- 
Indies,  and  were  commonly  distinguished  as  “ Na-  bobs  ” 
bobs.”  Their  ambition  led  them  to  aspire  to  a place  in  the  leg- 
islature : — their  great  wealth  gave  them  the  means  of  bri- 
bery ; and  the  scenes  in  which  they  had  studied  politics,  made 
them  unscrupulous  in  corruption.  A seat  in  Parliament  was 
for  sale,  like  an  estate ; and  they  bought  it,  without  hesitation 
or  misgiving.  Speaking  of  this  class,  Lord  Chatham  said  : 
“ Without  connections,  without  any  natural  interest  in  the 
soil,  the  importers  of  foreign  gold  have  forced  their  way  into 
Parliament,  by  such  a torrent  of  corruption  as  no  private 
hereditary  fortune  could  resist.”  8 

To  the  landed  gentry  they  had  long  since  been  obnoxious. 
A country  squire,  whatever  his  local  influence,  was  overborne 
by  the  profusion  of  wealthy  strangers.  Even  a powerful 

1 “ The  effect  produced  by  the  rapid  increase  in  wealth  upon  political 
morality  [in  Rome]  is  proved  by  the  frequent  laws  against  bribery  at  elec- 
tions, which  may  be  dated  from  the  year  181  b.c.  In  that  year  it  was 
enacted  that  any  one  found  guilty  of  using  bribery  to  gain  votes  should  be 
declared  incapable  of  becoming  a candidate  for  the  next  ten  years.”  — Dr. 
Liddell's  Hist,  of  Rome.  These  laws  are  enumerated  in  Colquhoun’s  Ro- 
man Civil  Law,  § 2402.  In  France  and  America,  bribery  has  been  prac- 
tised upon  representatives  rather  than  electors.  — De  Tocqueville , i.  264, 
&c. 

2 “ Both  the  Court  and  particulars  went  greater  lengths  than  in  any 
preceding  times.  In  truth,  the  corruption  of  electors  met,  if  not  exceeded, 
that  of  candidates.”  — Walp.  Mem.  i.  42. 

3 Jan.  22d,  1770.  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  752. 


270 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


noble  was  no  match  for  men,  who  brought  to  the  contest  the 
“ wealth  of  the  Indies.”  Nor  were  they  regarded  with  much 
favor  by  the  leaders  of  parties  ; for  men  who  had  bought 
their  seats,  — and  paid  dearly  for  them,  — owred  no  allegi- 
ance to  political  patrons.  Free  from  party  connections,  they 
sought  admission  into  Parliament,  not  so  much  with  a view 
to  a political  career,  as  to  serve  mere  personal  ends,  — to 
forward  commercial  speculations,  to  extend  their  connections, 
and  to  gratify  their  social  aspirations.  But  their  independ- 
ence and  ambition  well  fitted  them  for  the  service  of  the 
court.  The  king  was  struggling  to  disengage  himself  from 
the  domination  of  party  leaders  ; and  here  were  the  very 
men  he  needed,  — without  party  ties  or  political  preposses- 
sions, — daily  increasing  in  numbers  and  influence,  — and 
easily  attracted  to  his  interests  by  the  hope  of  those  rewards 
which  are  most  coveted  by  the  wealthy.  They  soon  ranged 
themselves  among  the  king’s  friends  ; and  thus  the  court 
policy,  — which  was  otherwise  subversive  of  freedom,  — be- 
came associated  with  parliamentary  corruption. 

The  scandals  of  the  election  of  1761  led  to  the  passing  of 
Bribery  Act  an  act  in  following  year,  by  which  pecuniary 
of  1762.  penalties  were  first  imposed  for  the  offence  of 
bribery.1  But  the  evil  which  it  sought  to  correct,  still  con- 
tinued without  a check. 

Where  the  return  of  members  was  left  to  a small,  but  in- 
Saie  of  bor-  dependent  body  of  electors,  their  individual  votes 
oughs.  were  secured  by  bribery  ; and  where  it  rested  with 
proprietors  or  corporations,  the  seat  was  purchased  outright. 
The  sale  of  boroughs, — an  abuse  of  some  antiquity,2  and  often 
practised  since  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  — became,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  reign,  a general  and  notorious  system.  The 
right  of  property  in  boroughs  was  acknowledged,  and  capable 

1 2 Geo.  III.  c.  24. 

2 In  1571,  the  borough  of  Westbury  was  fined  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons for  receiving  a bribe  of  4 1. ; and  the  mayor  was  ordered  to  refund  the 
money.  — Com.  Journ.  i.  88. 


BRIBERY  AT  ELECTIONS. 


271 


of  sale  or  transfer,  like  any  other  property.  In  1766,  Lord 
Hertford  prevailed  upon  Lord  Chatham’s  ministry  to  transfer 
to  him  the  borough  of  Orford,  which  belonged  to  the  Crown.1 
And  Sudbury,  infamous  for  its  corruption  until  its  ultimate 
disfranchisement,2  publicly  advertised  itself  for  sale.3 

If  a seat  occupied  by  any  member  happened  to  be  required 
by  the  government,  for  some  other  candidate,  he  was  bought 
out,  at  a price  agreed  upon  between  them.  Thus  in  1764, 
we  find  Lord  Chesterfield  advising  his  son  upon  the  best 
means  of  securing  1000/.  for  the  surrender  of  his  seat,  which 
had  cost  him  2000 /.  at  the  beginning  of  the  Parliament.4 

The  general  election  of  1768  was  at  least  as  corrupt  as 
that  of  1761,  and  the  sale  of  seats  more  open  and  General  eiec- 
undisguised.  Some  of  the  cases  were  so  flagrant  as  tl0n  of  1768, 
to  shock  even  the  moral  sentiments  of  that  time.  The  cor- 
poration of  Oxford,  being  heavily  embarrassed,  offered  again 
to  return  their  members,  Sir  Thomas  Stapylton  and  Mr.  Lee, 
on  payment  of  their  bond  debts,  amounting  to  5670/.  These 
gentlemen  refused  the  offer,  saying  that  as  they  did  not  intend 
to  sell  the  corporation,  they  could  not  afford  to  buy  them  ; 
and  brought  the  matter  before  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
mayor  and  ten  of  the  aldermen  were  committed  to  Newgate ; 
but  after  a short  imprisonment,  were  discharged  with  a rep- 
rimand from  the  Speaker.  Not  discouraged,  however,  by 
their  imprisonment,  they  completed,  in  Newgate,  a bargain 
which  they  had  already  commenced  ; and  sold  the  represen- 
tation of  their  city  to  the  Duke  of  Marlborough  and  the 
Earl  of  Abingdon.  Meanwhile  the  town  clerk  carried  off 
the  books  of  the  corporation  which  contained  evidence  of  the 
bargain ; and  the  business  was  laughed  at  and  forgotten.5 

For  the  borough  of  Poole,  there  were  three  candidates. 

1 Walpole’s  Mem.  ii.  361. 

2 7 & 8 Yict.  c.  53. 

3 Walpole’s  Mem.  i.  42. 

4 Oct.  19th,  1764,  Letters  of  Lord  Chesterfield  to  his  son,  iv.  218. 

6 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  397;  Walpole's  Mem.  iii.  153. 


272 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Mauger,  the  successful  candidate,  promised  the  corporation 
1000/.,  to  be  applied  to  public  purposes,  if  he  should  be 
elected  ; Gulston  made  them  a present  of  750/.,  as  a mark 
of  gratitude  for  the  election  of  his  father  on  a former  occa- 
sion ; and  Calcraft  appears  to  have  vainly  tempted  them 
with  the  more  liberal  offer  of  1500/.  The  election  was  de- 
clared void.1 

The  representation  of  the  borough  of  Ludgershall  was 
sold  for  9000/.  by  its  owner,  the  celebrated  George  Sehvyn  ; 
and  the  general  price  of  boroughs  was  said  to  be  raised  at 
that  time,  from  2500/.  to  4000/.  or  5000/.,  by  the  competition 
of  the  East  and  West  Indians.2  It  was  notorious  at  the 
time,  that  agents  or  “ borough -brokers  ” were  commissioned 
by  some  of  the  smaller  boroughs,  to  offer  them  to  the  highest 
bidder.  Two  of  these,  Reynolds  and  Hickey,  were  taken 
into  custody,  by  order  of  the  House ; and  some  others  were 
sent  to  Newgate.3  While  some  boroughs  were  thus  sold  in 
the  gross ; the  electors  were  purchased  elsewhere  by  the 
most  lavish  bribery.  The  contest  for  the  borough  of  North- 
ampton was  stated  to  have  cost  the  candidates  “at  least 
30,000/.  a side.”  4 Nay,  Lord  Spencer  is  said  to  have  spent 
the  incredible  sum  of  70,000/.  in  contesting  this  borough,  and 
in  the  proceedings  upon  an  election  petition  which  ensued.5 

In  1771,  the  systematic  bribery  which  had  long  prevailed 
at  New  Shoreham  was  exposed  by  an  election 
ham  case,  committee  — the  first  appointed  under  the  Gren- 
ville Act.6  It  appeared  that  a corrupt  association, 
comprising  the  majority  of  the  electors,  and  calling  itself 
“ The  Christian  Club,”  had,  under  the  guise  of  charity,  been 
in  the  habit  of  selling  the  borough  to  the  highest  bidder,  and 

1 Feb.  10th,  1769;  Com.  Journ.  xxxii.  199. 

2 Letters  of  Lord  Chesterfield  to  his  son,  Dec.  19th,  1767 ; April  12th, 
1768,  iv.  269,  274. 

3 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  157. 

4 Lord  Chesterfield  to  his  son,  April  12th,  1768,  iv.  274. 

5 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  198,  n.  by  Sir  D.  Le  Marchant. 

6 Cavendish  Deb.  i.  191. 


BRIBERY  AT  ELECTIONS. 


273 


dividing  the  spoil  amongst  its  members.  They  all  fearlessly 
took  the  bribery  oath ; as  the  bargain  had  been  made  by 
a committee  of  their  club,  who  abstained  from  voting ; and 
the  money  was  not  distributed  till  after  the  election.  But 
the  returning  officer,  having  been  himself  a member  of  the 
society,  and  knowing  all  the  electors  who  belonged  to  it,  had 
rejected  their  votes.  This  «case  was  too  gross  to  be  lightly 
treated ; and  an  act  was  passed  to  disfranchise  the  members 
of  the  club,  eighty-one  in  number,  and  to  admit  to  the  fran- 
chise, all  the  forty  shilling  freeholders  of  the  Rape  of  Br am- 
ber. An  address  was  also  voted  to  prosecute  the  five  mem- 
bers of  the  committee,  for  a corrupt  conspiracy.1 

In  1775,  bribery  was  proved  to  have  prevailed  so  widely 
and  shamelessly  at  Hindon,  that  an  election  com-  ^ ^ ^ 

mittee  recommended  the  disfranchisement  of  the  Shaftesbury 
borough  ; 2 and  at  Shaftesbury  the  same  abuse  was  cases‘ 
no  less  notorious.3 

In  1782,  the  universal  corruption  of  the  electors  of  Crick- 
lade  was  exposed  before  an  election  committee,  oickiade 
It  appeared  that  out  of  two  hundred  and  forty  case’ 1782- 
voters,  eighty-three  had  already  been  convicted  of  bribery ; 
and  that  actions  were  pending  against  forty-three  others.4  A 
bill  was  accordingly  brought  in,  to  extend  the  franchise  to  all 
the  freeholders  of  the  adjoining  hundreds.  Even  this  mod- 
erate measure  encountered  much  opposition,  — especially  in 
the  Lords,  where  Lord  Mansfield  and  Lord  Chancellor 
Thurlow  fought  stoutly  for  the  corrupt  electors.  Though 
the  bill  did  not  seek  to  disfranchise  a single  person,  it  was 
termed  a bill  of  pains  and  penalties,  and  counsel  were  heard 
against  it.  But  the  cause  of  the  electors,  even  with  such 
supporters,  was  too  bad  to  be  defended;  and  the  bill  was 
passed.5 

1 Com.  Joum.  xxxiii.  69,  102,  179;  11  Geo.  III.  c.  55. 

2 Com.  Journ.  xxxv.  118. 

3 Ibid.  311. 

4 Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1027,  1167, 1388. 

5 22  Geo.  III.  c.  31. 


VOL.  I. 


18 


274 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  king  himself  was  cog- 
Bribery  en  nizant  of  the  bribery  which,  at  this  period,  was 
courted  by  systematically  used  to  secure  Parliamentary  sup- 

theKing.  J ^ , „ _ . _ L 

port.  Nay,  more,  he  personally  advised  and  rec- 
ommended it.  Writing  to  Lord  North,  16th  October,  1779, 
he  said : “ If  the  Duke  of  Northumberland  requires  some 
gold  pills  for  the  election,  it  would  be  wrong  not  to  satisfy 
him.” 1 

When  the  disgraceful  traffic  in  boroughs  was  exposed  in 
t t the  House  of  Commons,  before  the  general  elec- 
restrain  cor-  tion  of  1768,  Alderman  Beckford  brought  in  a 
ruption.  reqUiring  an  oath  to  be  taken  by  every  mem- 

ber, that  he  had  not  been  concerned  in  any  bribery.  Ac- 
cording to  Horace  Walpole,  the  country  gentlemen  were 
favorable  to  this  bill,  as  a protection  against  “ great  lords, 
Nabobs,  commissaries,  and  West  Indians ; ” 2 but  the  extreme 
stringency  of  the  oath  proposed,  — which,  it  was  urged, 
would  result  in  perjury,  — a jealousy  lest,  under  some  of 
the  provisions  of  the  bill,  the  privileges  of  the  House  should 
be  submitted  to  the  courts  of  law,  — but  above  all,  a disin- 
clination to  deal  hardly  with  practices,  which  all  had  been 
concerned  in,  had  profited  by,  or  connived  at,  — ultimately 
secured  its  rejection. 

Again,  in  1782  and  1788,  Lord  Mahon  proposed  bills  to 
prevent  bribery  and  expenses  at  elections  ; but  on  both  oc- 
casions was  unsuccessful.  The  same  evil  practices  con- 
tinued, — unchecked  by  legislation,  connived  at  by  states- 
men, and  tolerated  by  public  opinion. 

The  system  of  purchasing  seats  in  the  House  of  Com- 
Saie  of  seats : nions,  however  indefensible  in  principle,  was  at 
its  uses.  least  preferable  to  the  general  corruption  of  elec- 
tors, and  in  some  respects,  to  the  more  prevalent  practice  of 
nomination.  To  buy  a seat  in  Parliament  was  often  the 
only  means,  by  which  an  independent  member  could  gain 

1 King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  137,  138. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  153,  157, 159. 


SALE  OF  SEATS. 


275 


admission  to  the  House  of  Commons.  If  he  accepted  a seat 
from  a patron,  his  independence  was  compromised ; but  if 
he  acquired  a seat  by  purchase,  he  was  free  to  vote  accord- 
ing to  his  own  opinions  and  conscience.  Thus,  we  find  Sir 
Samuel  Romilly,  — the  most  pure  and  virtuous  of  public 
men,  — who  had  declined  one  seat  from  the  favor  of  the 
Prince  of  Wales,1  justifying  the  purchase  of  another,  for  the 
sake  of  his  own  independence,  and  the  public  interests. 
Writing  in  September,  1805,  he  says : “As  long  as  burgage- 
tenure  representatives  are  only  of  two  descriptions,  — they 
who  buy  their  seats,  and  they  who  discharge  the  most  sacred 
of  trusts  at  the  pleasure,  and  almost  as  the  servants  of  an- 
other, — surely  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  which  class  a man 
would  choose  to  enroll  himself ; and  one  who  should  carry 
his  notions  of  purity  so  far,  that,  thinking  he  possessed  the 
means  of  rendering  service  to  his  country,  he  would  yet 
rather  seclude  himself  altogether  from  Parliament,  than  get 
into  it  by  such  a violation  of  the  theory  of  the  constitution, 
must  be  under  the  dominion  of  a species  of  moral  supersti- 
tion which  must  wholly  disqualify  him  for  the  discharge  of 
any  public  duties.”  2 

The  extent  to  which  the  sale  of  seats  prevailed,  and  its 
influence  over  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
may  also  be  exemplified  from  the  Diary  of  Sir  Samuel 
Romilly,  in  1807  : “ Tierney,  who  manages  this  business  for 
the  friends  of  the  late  administration,  assures  me  that  he  can 
hear  of  no  seats  to  be  disposed  of.  After  a Parliament 
which  had  lived  little  more  than  four  months,  one  would 
naturally  suppose  that  those  seats  which  are  regularly  sold 
by  the  proprietors  of  them,  would  be  very  cheap  : they  are, 
however,  in  fact,  sold  now  at  a higher  price  than  was  ever 
given  for  them  before.  Tierney  tells  me  that  he  has  offered 
10,000Z.  for  the  two  seats  of  Westbury,  the  property  of  the 
late  Lord  Abingdon,  and  which  are  to  be  made  the  most  of 

1 Romilly’s  Life,  ii.  114-120. 

2 Diary;  Life,  ii.  122. 


276 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


by  trustees  for  creditors,  and  has  met  with  a refusal.  6000/. 
and  5500/.  have  been  given  for  seats,  with  no  stipulation  as 
to  time,  or  against  the  event  of  a speedy  dissolution  by  the 
king’s  death,  or  by  any  change  of  administration.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  new  ministers  have  bought  up  all  the  seats  that 
were  to  be  disposed  of,  and  at  any  prices.  Amongst  others, 

Sir  C.  H , the  great  dealer  in  boroughs,  has  sold  all  he 

had  to  ministers.  With  what  money  all  this  is  done  I know 
not,  but  it  is  supposed  that  the  king,  who  has  greatly  at  heart 
to  preserve  this  new  administration,  the  favorite  objects  of 
his  choice,  has  advanced  a very  large  sum  out  of  his  privy 
purse. 

“ This  buying  of  seats  is  detestable  ; and  yet  it  is  almost 
the  only  way  in  which  one  in  my  situation,  who  is  resolved 
to  be  an  independent  man,  can  get  into  Parliament.  To 
come  in  by  a popular  election,  in  the  present  state  of  the 
representation,  is  quite  impossible;  to  be  placed  there  by 
some  great  lord,  and  to  vote  as  he  shall  direct,  is  to  be  in  a 
state  of  complete  dependence  ; and  nothing  hardly  remains 
but  to  owe  a seat  to  the  sacrifice  of  a part  of  one’s  fortune. 
It  is  true,  that  many  men  who  buy  seats  do  it  as  a matter 
of  pecuniary  speculation,  as  a profitable  way  of  employing 
their  money  : they  carry  on  a political  trade  ; they  buy  their 
seats  and  sell  their  votes.” 1 He  afterwards  bought  his  seat 
for  Horsham  of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  for  2000/. 

So  regular  was  the  market  for  seats,  that  where  it  was  in- 
, convenient  to  candidates  to  pay  down  the  purchase- 

Annnal  rents  r J 1 

for  seats  in  money,  they  were  accommodated  by  its  commuta- 
tion  into  an  annual  rent.  It  was  the  sole  redeem- 
ing quality  of  this  traffic,  that  boroughs  were  generally  dis- 
posed of  to  persons  professing  the  same  political  opinions  as 
the  proprietors.2 

The  practice  of  selling  and  letting  seats  at  last  became 
so  notorious,  that  it  could  no  longer  be  openly  tolerated  by 
Parliament.  In  1809,  Mr.  Curwen  brought  in  a bill  to  pre- 
1 Life  of  Sir  S.  Romilly,  ii.  200-201.  2 Ibid.  202. 


GOVERNMENT  INFLUENCE. 


277 


vent  the  obtaining  of  seats  in  Parliament  by  corrupt  practices, 
which  after  much  discussion  in  both  Houses,  he  a , r 

Sale  of  seats 

succeeded  in  passing.  It  imposed  heavy  penal-  framed  by 
ties  upon  corrupt  agreements  for  the  return  of 
members,  whether  for  money,  office,  or  other  consideration ; 
and  in  the  case  of  the  person  returned,  added  the  forfeiture 
of  his  seat.1 

But  notwithstanding  these  penalties,  the  sale  of  seats, — 
if  no  longer  so  open  and  avowed,  — continued  to  Thjg  Act  in- 
be  carried  on  by  private  arrangement,  so  long  as  °Peratlve- 
nomination  boroughs  were  suffered  to  exist,  as  one  of  the 
anomalies  of  our  representative  system.  The  representation 
of  Hastings,  being  vested  in  a close  corporation,  was  reg- 
ularly sold,  until  the  reform  act  had  enlarged  the  franchise, 
for  6000£.2  And  until  1832,  an  extensive  sale  of  similar 
boroughs  continued  to  be  negotiated  by  the  Secretary  to  the 
Treasury,  by  the  “ whippers-in  ” of  the  Opposition,  and  by 
proprietors  and  close  corporations.  So  long  as  any  boroughs 
remained,  which  could  be  bought  and  sold,  the  market  was 
well  supplied  both  with  buyers  and  sellers. 

Boroughs  whose  members  were  nominated,  as  to  an  office, 
and  boroughs  bought  in  the  open  market,  or  cor-  Government 
rupted  by  lavish  bribery,  could  not  pretend  to 
popular  election.  The  members  for  such  places  oughs* 
were  independent  of  the  people,  whom  they  professed  to  rep- 
resent. But  there  were  populous  places,  thriving  ports,  and 
manufacturing  towns,  whence  representatives,  freely  chosen, 
might  have  been  expected  to  find  their  way  into  the  House 
of  Commons.  But  these  very  places  were  the  favorite  resort 
of  the  government  candidates. 

The  seven  years’  war  had  increased  the  national  debt,  and 
the  taxation  of  the  country.  The  number  of  officers  em- 
ployed in  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  was  consequently 
augmented.  Being  the  servants  of  the  government,  their 

1 49  Geo.  III.  c.  118;  Hansard’s  Deb.  xiv.  354,  617,  837,  1032,  &c. 

2 From  private  information. 


278 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


i 

votes  were  secured  for  the  ministerial  candidates.  It  was 
quite  understood  to  be  a part  of  their  duty,  to  vote  for  any 
candidate  who  hoisted  the  colors  of  the  minister  of  the  day. 
Wherever  they  were  most  needed  by  the  government,  their 
number  was  the  greatest.  The  smaller  boroughs  were  al- 
ready secured  by  purchase,  or  overwhelming  local  interest ; 
but  the  cities  and  ports  had  some  pretensions  to  independ- 
ence. Here,  however,  troops  of  petty  officers  of  customs 
and  excise  were  driven  to  the  poll,  and,  — supported  by 
venal  freemen,  — overpowered  the  independent  electors. 

In  1768,  Mr.  Dowdeswell  had  in  vain  endeavored  to  insert 
„ ^ a clause  in  Alderman  Beckford’s  bribery  bill,  for 

cersdisfran-  the  disqualification  of  revenue  officers.  In  1770 
he  proposed  a bill  to  disqualify  these  officers  from 
voting  at  elections,  and  was  supported  by  Mr.  Grenville.  It 
was  urged,  however,  that  they  were  already  prohibited  from 
interfering  at  elections,  though  not  from  voting  ; and  that  no 
further  restraint  could  reasonably  be  required.  But,  in 
truth,  the  ministry  of  Lord  North  were  little  disposed  to 
surrender  so  important  a source  of  influence ; and  the  bill 
was  accordingly  rejected.1 

The  measure,  however,  was  merely  postponed  for  a time. 
The  dangerous  policy  of  the  Court,  under  Lord  North,  — 
and  its  struggle  to  rule  by  prerogative  and  influence,  — con- 
vinced all  liberal  statesmen,  of  the  necessity  of  protecting 
public  liberty,  by  more  effectual  safeguards.  Meanwhile  the 
disastrous  American  war  further  aggravated  the  evils  of 
taxes,  and  tax-collectors. 

In  1780,  a bill  to  disqualify  revenue  officers  was  proposed 
by  Mr.  Crewe,  and  though  rejected  on  the  second  reading,  it 
met  with  much  more  support  than  Mr.  DowdeswelFs  previous 
measure.2 *  It  was  again  brought  forward  in  1781,  with  less 
success  than  in  the  previous  year.8  But  the  time  was  now 

1 By  a majority  of  263  to  188 ; Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  834;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  442. 

2 The  numbers  were  224  to  195 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  403. 

8 The  numbers  being  133  to  86 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  1398. 


GOVERNMENT  INFLUENCE. 


279 


at  hand,  when  a determined  assault  was  contemplated  upon 
the  influence  of  the  Crown ; and  in  1782,  the  disqualification 
of  revenue  officers,  — which  had  hitherto  been  an  opposition 
measure,  — was  proposed  by  the  ministry  of  Lord  Rocking- 
ham. Its  imperative  necessity  was  proved  by  Lord  Rock- 
ingham himself,  who  stated  that  seventy  elections  chiefly  de- 
pended on  the  votes  of  these  officers  ; and  that  eleven  thou- 
sand five  hundred  officers  of  customs  and  excise  were  elec- 
tors.1 In  one  borough,  he  said  that  one  hundred  and  twenty 
out  of  the  five  hundred  voters,  had  obtained  revenue  appoint- 
ments, through  the  influence  of  a single  person. 

This  necessary  measure  was  now  carried  through  both 
Houses,  by  large  majorities,  though  not  without  remon- 
strances against  its  principle,  especially  from  Lord  Mans- 
field. It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  disqualification  of  any 
class  of  men  is,  abstractedly,  opposed  to  liberty,  and  an  illib- 
eral principle  of  legislation ; but  here  was  a gross  constitu- 
tional abuse  requiring  correction  ; and  though  many  voters 
were  deprived  of  the  rights  of  citizenship,  — these  rights 
could  not  be  freely  exercised,  and  were  sacrificed  in  order  to 
protect  the  general  liberties  of  the  people.  Had  there  been 
a franchise  so  extensive  as  to  leave  the  general  body  of  elec- 
tors free  to  vote,  without  being  overborne  by  the  servants  of 
the  Crown,  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  justify  the  policy 
of  disfranchisement.  But  with  a franchise  so  restricted  that 
the  electors  were  controlled  by  the  Crown,  in  the  choice  of 
their  representatives,  the  measure  was  necessary  in  the  inter- 
ests of  freedom. 

Such  being  the  dependence  and  corruption  of  the  smaller 
boroughs,  — and  such  the  government  influence  in  vexatious 
many  of  the  larger  towns,  — there  were  still  a populous111 
few  great  cities,  with  popular  rights  of  election,  cities- 
whose  inhabitants  neither  landowners  nor  government  could 
control,  and  which  were  beyond  the  influence  of  corruption. 
Here,  at  least,  there  might  have  been  a free  expression  of 
1 June  3d,  1782 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  95. 


280 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


public  opinion.  But  such  were  the  vices  of  the  laws  which 
formerly  regulated  elections,  — laws  not  designed  for  the 
protection  of  the  franchise,  — that  a popular  candidate,  with 
a majority  of  votes,  might  be  met  by  obstacles  so  vexa- 
tious and  oppressive,  as  to  debar  him  from  the  free  suffrage 
of  the  electors.  If  not  defeated  at  the  poll,  by  riots  and 
open  violence,  — or  defrauded  of  his  votes,  by  the  partiality 
of  the  returning  officer,  or  the  factious  manoeuvres  of  his 
opponents,  — he  was  ruined  by  the  extravagant  costs  of  his 
victory.  The  poll  was  liable  to  be  kept  open  for  forty  days, 
entailing  an  enormous  expense  upon  the  candidates,  and  pro- 
lific of  bribery,  treating,  and  riots.  During  this  period,  the 
public-houses  were  thrown  open  ; and  drunkenness  and  dis- 
order prevailed  in  the  streets,  and  at  the  hustings.  Bands 
of  hired  ruffians,  — armed  with  bludgeons,  and  inflamed 
by  drink,  — paraded  the  public  thoroughfares,  intimidating 
voters,  and  resisting  their  access  to  the  polling  places.  Can- 
didates assailed  with  offensive,  and  often  dangerous  missiles, 
braved  the  penalties  of  the  pillory  ; while  their  supporters 
were  exposed  to  the  fury  of  a drunken  mob.  Even  now,  a 
contested  election,  which  lasts  but  a day,  is  often  a reproach 
to  a civilized  people.  What  then  must  it  have  been  before 
any  of  its  worst  vices  had  been  controlled,  and  when  it  con- 
tinued for  upwards  of  a month  ? 

The  most  conspicuous  example  of  all  the  abuses  of  which 
Westminster  the  o Id  electoral  system  was  capable,  was  that  of 
election,  1784.  t}ie  Westminster  election,  in  1784.  Mr.  Fox  had 
incurred  the  violent  resentment  of  the  government,  by  his 
recent  opposition  to  Mr.  Pitt,  and  the  Court  party.  It  had 
been  determined,  that  all  the  members  who  had  supported 
the  Coalition  should  be  opposed,  at  the  general  election  ; and 
Mr.  Fox,  their  ablest  leader,  was  the  foremost  man  to  be  as- 
sailed. The  election,  — disgraced  throughout  by  scenes  of 
drunkenness,  tumult,  and  violence,1  — and  by  the  coarsest 

1 In  one  of  the  brawls  which  arose  during  its  progress,  a man  was  killed, 
whose  death  was  charged  against  persons  belonging  to  Mr.  Fox’s  party,  but 
they  were  all  acquitted. 


WESTMINSTER  ELECTION. 


281 


libels  and  lampoons,  — was  continued  for  forty  days.  When 
the  poll  was  closed,  Mr.  Fox  was  in  a majority  of  two  hun- 
dred and  thirty-six  above  Sir  Cecil  Wray,  one  of  the  Court 
candidates.  But  he  was  now  robbed  of  the  fruits  of  his  vic- 
tory by  the  High  Bailiff ; who  withheld  his  return,  and  com- 
menced a scrutiny  into  the  votes.  By  withholding  the  return, 
after  the  day  on  which  the  writ  was  returnable,  he  denied  the 
successful  candidate  his  right  to  sit  in  Parliament ; and  an- 
ticipated the  jurisdiction  of  the  House  of  Commons,  by  which 
court  alone,  the  validity  of  the  election  could  then  properly 
be  determined.  This  unwarrantable  proceeding  would  have 
excluded  Mr.  Fox  from  his  rightful  place  in  Parliament ; 
but  he  had  already  been  returned  for  Kirkwall,  and  took  his 
seat,  at  the  commencement  of  the  session. 

Apart  from  the  vexation  and  injustice  to  which  Mr.  Fox 
had  been  exposed,  the  expense  of  the  scrutiny  was  estimated 
at  18,000Z.  In  vain  his  friends  endeavored  to  induce  the 
House  of  Commons  to  order  the  High  Bailiff  to  make  an 
immediate  return.  That  officer  was  upheld  by  Mr.  Pitt,  who 
was  followed,  at  first,  by  a large  majority.  Mr.  Fox,  in  his 
bitterness,  exclaimed : “ I have  no  reason  to  expect  indul- 
gence : nor  do  I know  that  I shall  meet  with  bare  justice  in 
this  House.”  As  no  return  had  been  made,  which  could  be 
submitted  to  the  adjudication  of  an  election  committee,  Mr.  Fox 
was  at  the  mercy  of  a hostile  majority  of  the  House.  The 
High  Bailiff  was,  indeed,  directed  to  proceed  with  the  scrutiny 
with  all  practicable  despatch  ; but  at  the  commencement  of  the 
following  session,  — when  the  scrutiny  had  been  proceeding  for 
eight  months,  — it  had  only  been  completed  in  a single  par- 
ish ; and  had  but  slightly  affected  the  relative  position  of  the 
candidates.  Notwithstanding  this  exposure  of  the  monstrous 
injustice  of  the  scrutiny,  Mr.  Pitt  still  resisted  a motion  for 
directing  the  High  Bailiff  to  make  an  immediate  return. 
But,  — blindly  as  he  had  hitherto  been  followed,  — such  was 
the  iniquity  of  the  cause  which  he  persisted  in  supporting, 
that  all  his  influence  failed  in  commanding  a larger  majority 


282 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


than  nine  ; and  on  the  3d  of  March,  he  was  defeated  by  a 
majority  of  thirty-eight.1  The  minister  was  justly  punished 
for  his  ungenerous  conduct  to  an  opponent,  and  for  his  con- 
tempt of  the  law,  — prompted,  to  use  the  words  of  Mr.  F ox, 
by  “ the  malignant  wish  of  gratifying  an  inordinate  and  im- 
placable spirit  of  resentment.” 2 But  a system  which  had 
thus  placed  a popular  candidate,  — in  one  of  the  first  cities 
of  the  kingdom,  — at  the  mercy  of  factious  violence,  and 
ministerial  oppression,  was  a flagrant  outrage  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  freedom.  Parliament  further  marked  its  reproba- 
tion of  such  proceedings,  by  limiting  every  poll  to  fifteen  days, 
and  closing  a scrutiny  six  days  before  the  day  on  which  the 
writ  was  returnable.3 

In  the  counties,  the  franchise  was  more  free  and  liberal, 
than  in  the  majority  of  cities  and  boroughs.  All 

Territorial  in-  ° J ° 

fluence  in  forty -shilling  freeholders  were  entitled  to  vote  ; 

and  in  this  class  were  comprised  the  country  gen- 
tlemen, and  independent  yeomanry  of  England.  Hence  the 
county  constituencies  were  at  once  the  most  numerous,  the 
most  responsible,  and  the  least  corrupt.  They  represented 
public  opinion  more  faithfully  than  other  electoral  bodies ; 
and  on  many  occasions,  had  great  weight  in  advancing  a 
popular  cause.  Such  were  their  respectability  and  public 
spirit,  that  most  of  the  earlier  schemes  of  Parliamentary  re- 
form contemplated  the  disfranchisement  of  boroughs,  and  the 
simple  addition  of  members  to  the  counties.  But  notwith- 
standing their  unquestionable  merits,  the  county  electors 
were  peculiarly  exposed  to  the  influence  of  the  great  nobles, 
who  held  nearly  a feudal  sway.  Illustrious  ancestry,  vast 
possessions,  high  offices,  distinguished  political  services  and 
connections,  placed  them  at  the  head  of  the  society  of  their 

1 By  162  against  124;  Ann.  Reg.,  1784,  xxvii.  180;  Adolphus’s  Hist.  iv. 
115-118,  168. 

*2  Pari.  Hist.  xxiv.  808,  843,  846 ; ibid.  xxv.  3 ; Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  i. 
542 ; ii.  7,  24,  &c. ; Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  of  Fox,  ii.  99. 

3 25  Geo.  III.  c.  84. 


REPRESENTATION  OF  SCOTLAND. 


283 


several  counties ; and  local  influence,  and  the  innate  respect 
for  aristocracy  which  animates  the  English  people,  combined 
to  make  them  the  political  leaders  of  the  gentry  and  yeo- 
manry. In  some  counties,  powerful  commoners  were  no  less 
dominant.  The  greater  number  of  the  counties  in  England 
and  Wales  were  represented  by  members  of  these  families, 
or  by  gentlemen  enjoying  their  confidence  and  patronage.1 

A contested  election  was  more  often  due  to  the  rivalry  of 
great  houses,  than  to  the  conflict  of  political  principles  among 
the  electors ; but,  as  the  candidates  generally  belonged  to  op- 
posite parties,  their  contentions  produced  political  discussion 
and  enlightenment.  Such  contests  were  conducted  with  the 
spirit  and  vigor  which  rivalry  inspires,  and  with  an  extrava- 
gance which  none  but  princely  fortunes  could  support.  They 
were  like  the  wars  of  small  states.  In  1768,  the  Duke  of 
Portland  is  said  to  have  spent  40,000/.  in  contesting  West- 
moreland and  Cumberland  with  Sir  James  Lowther ; who, 
on  his  side,  must  have  spent  at  least  as  much.2  And,  with- 
in the  memory  of  some  men  still  living,  an  election  for  the 
county  of  York  has  been  known  to  cost  nearly  150,000/.3 

Great  as  were  the  defects  of  the  representation  of  Eng- 
land, — those  of  Scotland  were  greater,  and  of 

Representa- 

more  general  operation.  I he  county  franchise  tion  of  Scot- 
consisted  in  “ superiorities,”  which  were  bought  an 
and  sold  in  the  market,  and  were  enjoyed  independently  of 
property  or  residence.  The  burgh  franchise  was  vested  in 
self-elected  town-councillors.  The  constituencies,  therefore, 
represented  neither  population  nor  property;  but  the  nar- 
rowest local  interests.  It  was  shown  in  1823,  that  the  total 
number  of  persons  enjoying  the  franchise  was  less  than 
three  thousand.  In  no  county  did  the  number  of  electors 
exceed  two  hundred  and  forty : in  one  it  was  as  low  as 
nine  ; and  of  this  small  number,  a considerable  propor- 

1 Oldfield’s  Representative  Hist.  vi.  285. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  197. 

3 Speech  of  Lord  J.  Russell,  March  1st,  1831 ; Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser., 

ii.  1074.  , • 


284 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


tion  were  fictitious  voters,  — without  property,  and  not  even 
resident  in  the  country.1 

In  1831,  the  total  number  of  county  voters  did  not  exceed 
two  thousand  five  hundred ; and  the  constituencies  of  the 
sixty-six  boroughs,  amounted  to  one  thousand  four  hundred 
and  forty.  Thus  the  entire  electoral  body  of  Scotland  was 
not  more  than  four  thousand.  The  county  of  Argyll,  with 
a population  of  one  hundred  thousand,  had  but  one  hundred 
and  fifteen  electors,  of  whom  eighty-four  were  out-voters, 
without  any  land  within  the  county.  Caithness,  with  thirty 
thousand  inhabitants,  contained  forty-seven  freeholders,  of 
whom  thirty-six  were  out-voters.  Inverness-shire,  with 
ninety  thousand  inhabitants,  had  but  eighty-eight  freehold- 
ers, of  whom  fifty  were  out-voters.  Edinburgh  and  Glas- 
gow, the  two  first  cities  of  Scotland,  had  each  a constituency 
of  thirty-three  persons.2 

With  a franchise  so  limited  and  partial  as  this,  all  the 
counties  and  burghs,  without  exception,  had  fallen  under  the 
influence  of  political  patrons.3  A great  kingdom,  with  more 
than  two  millions  of  people,  — intelligent,  instructed,  indus- 
trious, and  peaceable,  — was  virtually  disfranchised.  Mean- 
while, the  potentates  who  returned  the  members  to  Parlia- 
ment, — instead  of  contending  among  themselves,  like  their 
brethren  in  England,  and  joining  opposite  parties,  — were 
generally  disposed  to  make  their  terms  with  the  ministers ; 
and  by  skilful  management,  the  entire  representation  was 
engrossed  by  the  friends  and  agents  of  the  government.  It 
was  not  secured,  however,  without  a profuse  distribution  of 
patronage,  which,  judiciously  administered,  had  long  retained 
the  allegiance  of  members  coming  from  the  north  of  the 
Tweed.4 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  ix.  611. 

2 Speech  of  Lord  Advocate,  Sept.  23d,  1831;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser., 
vii.  529. 

8 Oldfield’s  Representative  Hist.  vi.  294;  Edinburgh  Review,  Oct.  1830, 
Art.  X. 

4 It  was  said  of  one  Scotch  county  member,  “ that  his  invariable  rule  was 
never  to  be  present  at  a debate,  or  absent  at  a division ; and  that  he  had 


REPRESENTATION  OF  SCOTLAND. 


285 


Lord  Cockburn,  a contemporary  witness,  — has  given  a 
spirited  account  of  the  mode  in  which  elections  in  Scotland 
were  conducted.  He  says : “ The  return  of  a single  oppo- 
sition member  was  never  to  be  expected.  . . . The  return 
of  three  or  four  was  miraculous,  and  these  startling  excep- 
tions were  always  the  result  of  local  accidents.  . . . What- 
ever this  system  may  have  been  originally,  it  had  grown,  in 
reference  to  the  people,  into  as  complete  a mockery,  as  if 
it  had  been  invented  for  their  degradation.  The  people  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  was  all  managed  by  town-councils, 
of  never  more  than  thirty-three  members ; and  every  town- 
council  was  self-elected,  and  consequently  perpetuated  its 
own  interests.  The  election  of  either  the  town  or  the 
county  member,  was  a matter  of  such  utter  indifference  to 
the  people,  that  they  often  only  knew  of  it  by  the  ringing  of 
a bell,  or  by  seeing  it  mentioned  next  day  in  a newspaper ; 
for  the  farce  was  generally  performed  in  an  apartment  from 
which,  if  convenient,  the  public  could  be  excluded,  and 
never  in  the  open  air.”  1 

Where  there  were  districts  of  burghs,  each  town-council 
elected  a delegate,  and  the  four  or  five  delegates  elected  the 
member  ; “ and,  instead  of  bribing  the  town-councils,  the 
established  practice  was  to  bribe  only  the  delegates,  or  in- 
deed only  one  of  them,  if  this  could  secure  the  majority.”  2 

A case  of  inconceivable  grotesqueness  was  related  by  the 
Lord  Advocate,  in  1831.  The  county  of  Bute,  with  a pop- 
ulation of  fourteen  thousand,  had  twenty-one  electors^,  of 
whom  one  only  resided  in  the  county.  “ At  an  election  at 
Bute,  not  beyond  the  memory  of  man,  only  one  person 
attended  the  meeting,  except  the  Sheriff  and  the  returning 
officer.  He,  of  course,  took  the  chair,  constituted  the  meet- 
ing, called  over  the  roll  of  freeholders,  answered  to  his  own 

only  once,  in  his  long  political  life,  ventured  to  vote  according  to  his  con- 
science, and  that  he  found  on  that  occasion  he  had  voted  wrong.”  — Han- 
sard’s Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  vii.  543. 

1 Life  of  Jeffrey,  i.  75. 

2 Cockhurn’s  Mem.  i.  88. 


286 


HOUSE  OF  COMMON'S. 


name,  took  the  vote  as  to  the  Preses,  and  elected  himself. 
He  then  moved  and  seconded  his  own  nomination,  put  the 
question  as  to  the  vote,  and  was  unanimously  returned.”  1 
This  close  system  of  elections  had  existed  even  before  the 
Union ; but  though  sufficiently  notorious,  the  British  Parlia- 
ment had  paid  little  attention  to  its  defects. 

In  1818,  and  again  in  1823,  Lord  Archibald  Hamilton 
Motions  by  shown  the  state  of  the  Royal  Burghs,  — the 

Lord  Archi-  self-election,  and  irresponsibility  of  the  councillors, 

bald  Hamil-  . f J _ _ _ 

ton,  1818,  — and  their  uncontrolled  authority  over  the  local 

1823  J 

funds.  The  questions  then  raised  referred  to  mu- 
nicipal rather  than  parliamentary  reform ; but  the  latter  came 
incidentally  under  review,  and  it  was  admitted  that  there  was 
“ no  popular  election,  or  pretence  of  popular  election.”  2 In 
1823,  Lord  Archibald  exposed  the  state  of  the  county  repre- 
sentation, and  the  general  electoral  system  of  the  country, 
and  found  one  hundred  and  seventeen  supporters.3 

In  1824,  the  question  of  Scotch  representation  was  brought 
forward  by  Mr.  Abercromby.  The  inhabitants 

Representa-  J J 

tionofEdin-  of  Edinburgh  complained,  by  petition,4  that  the 
burgh,  1826.  representation  0f  this  capital  city,  — the  metrop- 
olis of  the  North,  with  upwards  of  one  hundred  thousand 
inhabitants,  — was  returned  by  thirty-three  electors,  of  whom 
nineteen  had  been  chosen  by  their  predecessors  in  the  town- 
council  ! Mr.  Abercromby  moved  for  leave  to  bring  in  a 
Bill  to  amend  the  representation  of  that  city,  — as  an  instal- 
ment of  Parliamentary  reform  in  Scotland.  His  motion 
failed,  and  being  renewed  in  1826,  was  equally  unsuccessful. 
Such  proposals  were  always  met  in  the  same  manner. 
When  general  measures  of  reform  were  advocated,  the  mag- 


1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  vii.  529. 

2 Sir  J.  Mackintosh;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xxxvii.  434;  Ibid.,  26.  Ser., 
viii.  735. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  ix.  611. 

4 This  petition  had  been  presented  May  5th,  1823,  drawn  up  by  Mr. 
Jeffrey,  and  signed  by  7000  out  of  the  10,000  householders  of  the  city.  — 
Cockburn's  Mem.  404. 


REPRESENTATION  OF  IRELAND. 


287 


nitude  of  the  change  was  urged  as  the  reason  for  rejecting 
them ; and  when,  to  obviate  such  objections,  the  correction 
of  any  particular  defect  was  attempted,  its  exceptional  char- 
acter was  a decisive  argument  against  it.1 

Prior  to  1801,  the  British  Parliament  was  not  concerned 
in  the  state  of  the  representation  of  the  people  T> 

1 A 1 Representa- 

of  Ireland.  But  on  the  union  of  that  country,  tion  of  ire- 
the  defects  of  its  representation  were  added  to 
those  of  England  and  Scotland,  in  the  constitution  of  the 
united  Parliament.  The  counties  and  boroughs  in  Ireland 
were  at  least  as  much  under  the  influence  of  great  patrons, 
as  in  England.  It  is  true,  that  in  arranging  the  terms  of 
the  Union,  Mr.  Pitt  took  the  opportunity  of  abolishing 
several  of  the  smaller  nomination  boroughs;  but  many 
were  spared,  which  were  scarcely  less  under  the  patronage 
of  noblemen  and  landowners ; and  places  of  more  consider- 
ation were  reduced,  by  restricted  rights  of  election,  to  a 
similar  dependence.  In  Belfast,  in  Carlow,  in  Wexford, 
and  in  Sligo,  the  right  of  election  was  vested  in  twelve  self- 
elected  burgesses  : in  Limerick  and  Kilkenny,  it  was  in  the 
corporation  and  freemen.  In  the  counties,  the  influence  of 
the  territorial  families  was  equally  dominant.  For  the  sake 
of  political  influence,  the  landowners  had  subdivided  their 
estates  into  a prodigious  number  of  forty-shilling  freeholds ; 
and  until  the  freeholders  had  fallen  under  the  dominion  of 
the  priests,  they  were  faithful  to  their  Protestant  patrons. 
According  to  the  law  of  Ireland,  freeholds  were  created 
without  the  possession  of  property ; and  the  votes  of  the 
freeholders  were  considered  as  the  absolute  right  of  the 
proprietor  of  the  soil.  Hence  it  was,  that  after  the  Union 
more  than  two  thirds  of  the  Irish  members  were  returned, 
not  by  the  people  of  Ireland,  but  by  about  fifty  or  sixty  in- 
fluential patrons.2 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  x.  455;  Ibid.  xiv.  107 ; Ibid.  xv.  163. 

2 Wakefield’s  Statistical  and  Political  Account  of  Ireland,  ii.  299,  et  seq. ; 
Oldfield’s  Representative  Hist.  vi.  209-280. 


288 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Such  being  the  state  of  the  representation  in  the  United 

Majority  of  Kingdom,  an  actual  majority  of  the  members  of 

the  members  the  House  of  Commons,  were  returned  by  an  in- 
nominated.  . _ _ _ n . . 

considerable  number  or  persons.  According  to  a 
statement  made  by  the  Duke  of  Richmond  in  1780,  not  more 
than  six  thousand  men  returned  a clear  majority  of  the 
House  of  Commons.1  It  was  alleged  in  the  petition  of  the 
Society  of  the  Friends  of  the  People,  presented  by  Mr. 
Grey  in  1798,  that  eighty-four  individuals  absolutely  re- 
turned one  hundred  and  fifty-seven  members  to  Parliament ; 
that  seventy  influential  men  secured  the  return  of  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  members  ; and  that,  in  this  manner,  three  hun- 
dred and  seven  members,  — being  the  majority  of  the  House, 
before  the  union  with  Ireland,  — were  returned  to  Parlia- 
ment by  one  hundred  and  fifty-four  patrons ; of  whom  forty 
were  peers.2  In  1821,  Mr.  Lambton  stated  that  he  was 
prepared  to  prove  by  evidence,  at  the  bar  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  “that  one  hundred  and  eighty  individuals  re- 
turned, by  nomination  or  otherwise,  three  hundred  and  fifty 
members.”  3 

Dr.  Oldfield’s  Representative  History  furnishes  still  more 
elaborate  statistics  of  parliamentary  patronage.  According 
to  his  detailed  statements,  no  less  than  two  hundred  and  eigh- 
teen members  were  returned  for  counties  and  boroughs,  in 
England  and  Wales,  by  the  nomination  or  influence  of  eighty- 
seven  peers;  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  were  returned 
by  ninety  commoners,  and  sixteen  by  the  Government ; mak- 
ing a total  number  of  three  hundred  and  seventy-one  nominee 
members.  Of  the  forty-five  members  for  Scotland,  thirty- 
one  were  returned  by  twenty-one  peers,  and  the  remainder 
by  fourteen  commoners.  Of  the  hundred  members  for  Ire- 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  686. 

2 Ibid.  xxx.  787. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  v.  359.  Writing  in  1821,  Sydney  Smith  says: 
“ The  country  belongs  to  the  Duke  of  Rutland,  Lord  Lonsdale,  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle,  and  about  twenty  other  holders  of  boroughs.  They  are  our 
masters.”  — Mem.  ii.  215. 


TRIAL  OF  ELECTION  PETITIONS. 


289 


land,  fifty-one  were  returned  by  thirty-six  peers,  and  twenty 
by  nineteen  commoners.  The  general  result  of  these  sur- 
prising statements  is,  — that  of  the  six  hundred  and  fifty- 
eight  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  four  hundred  and 
eighty-seven  were  returned  by  nomination  ; and  one  hundred 
and  seventy-one  only  were  representatives  of  independent 
constituencies.1  Such  matters  did  not  admit  of  proof,  and 
were  beyond  the  scope  of  Parliamentary  inquiries  : but  after 
making  allowances  for  imperfect  evidence  and  exaggeration, 
we  are  unable  to  resist  the  conclusion,  that  not  more  than 
one  third  of  the  House  of  Commons,  were  the  free  choice 
even  of  the  limited  bodies  of  electors  then  intrusted  with  the 
franchise. 

Scandalous  as  were  the  electoral  abuses  which  law  and 
custom  formerly  permitted,  the  conduct  of  the  InjUSt.iCe  in 
House  of  Commons,  in  the  trial  of  election  peti-  ^ectionpeu- 
tions,  was  more  scandalous  still.  Boroughs  were  tions* 
bought  and  sold,  — electors  were  notoriously  bribed  by  whole- 
sale and  retail,  — returning  officers  were  partial  and  corrupt. 
But,  in  defiance  of  all  justice  and  decency,  the  majority  of 
the  House  of  Commons  connived  at  these  practices,  when 
committed  by  their  own  party  ; and  only  condemned  them, 
when  their  political  opponents  were  put  upon  their  trial. 
Dat  veniam  corvis , — vexat  censura  columbas.  The  Com- 
mons having,  for  the  sake  of  their  own  independence,  insisted 
upon  an  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  election,  were 
not  ashamed  to  prostitute  it  to  party.  They  were  charged 
with  a grave  trust,  and  abused  it.  They  assumed  a judicial 
office,  and  dishonored  it.  This  discreditable  perversion  of 
justice  had  grown  up  with  those  electoral  abuses,  which  an 
honest  judicature  would  have  tended  to  correct ; and  reached 
its  greatest  excesses,  in  the  reigns  of  George  II.  and  George 
III. 

Originally,  controverted  elections  had  been  tried  by  select 
committees  specially  nominated,  and  afterwards  by  the  Com- 

1 Oldfield’s  Representative  Hist.  1816,  vi.  285-300. 

19 


VOL.  I. 


290 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


mittee  of  Privileges  and  Elections.  This  latter  committee 
had  been  nominated  by  the  House  itself,  being  composed  of 
Privy  Councillors  and  eminent  lawyers,  well  qualified  by 
their  learning,  for  the  judicial  inquiries  intrusted  to  them. 
In  1603,  it  comprised  the  names  of  Sir  Francis  Bacon  and 
Sir  Thomas  Fleming;1  in  1623,  the  names  of  Sir  Edward 
Coke,  Sir  Heneage  Finch,  Mr.  Pym,  Mr.  Glanville,  Sir 
Roger  North,  and  Mr.  Selden.2  The  committee  was  then 
confined  to  the  members  nominated  by  the  House  itself ; 3 
but  being  afterwards  enlarged  by  the  introduction  of  all 
Privy  Councillors  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Long  Robe,  it  be- 
came, after  1672,  an  open  committee,  in  which  all  who  came 
were  allowed  to  have  voices.  This  committee  was  hence- 
forth exposed  to  all  the  evils  of  large  and  fluctuating  num- 
bers, and  an  irresponsible  constitution ; and  at  length,  in  the 
time  of  Mr.  Speaker  Onslow,  a hearing  at  the  bar  of  the 
House  itself,  — which  in  special  cases  had  already  been  oc- 
casionally resorted  to,  — was  deemed  preferable  to  the  less 
public  and  responsible  judicature  of  the  committee.  Here, 
however,  the  partiality  and  injustice  of  the  judges  were  soon 
notorious.  The  merits  of  the  election,  on  which  they  affected 
to  adjudicate,  were  little  regarded.  To  use  the  words  of  Mr. 
Grenville,  “ The  Court  was  thin  to  hear,  and  full  to  judge.’,  4 
Parties  tried  their  strength,  — the  friends  of  rival  candidates 
canvassed  and  manoeuvred,  — and  seats  corruptly  gained, 
were  as  corruptly  protected,  or  voted  away.  The  right  of 
election  was  wrested  from  the  voters,  and  usurped  by  the 
elected  body,  who  thus  exercised  a vicious  self-election.  The 
ministers  of  the  day,  when  they  commanded  a majority,  sus- 
tained their  own  friends  ; and  brought  all  their  forces  to  bear 
against  the  members  of  the  Opposition.  This  flagitious  cus- 

1 Com.  Journ.  i.  149  (March  23d,  1603).  There  are  earlier  appointments 
in  D’Ewes’  Journal. 

2 Com.  Journ.  i.  716;  Glanville’s  Rep.,  Pref.,  vii. 

8 Com.  Journ.  i.  716;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  508. 

4 This  had  been  previously  said  of  the  House  of  Lords,  by  the  Duke  of 
Argyll. 


TRIAL  OF  ELECTION  PETITIONS. 


291 


tom  formed  part  of  the  parliamentary  organization,  by  which 
the  influence  of  the  Crown  and  its  ministers,  was  maintained. 
It  was  not  until  a government  was  falling,  that  its  friends 
were  in  danger  of  losing  their  seats.  The  struggle  between 
Sir  Robert  Walpole  and  his  enemies  was  determined  in  1741, 
— not  upon  any  question  of  public  policy,  — but  by  the 
defeat  of  the  minister  on  the  Chippenham  Election  Peti- 
tion. 

To  remedy  these  evils,  and  remove  the  opprobrium  of 
notorious  injustice  from  the  House  of  Commons,  The  Grenviiie 
Mr.  Grenville  introduced  in  1770,  his  celebrated  Act’1770 
measure,  — since  known  as  the  Grenville  Act,  and  a land- 
mark in  Parliamentary  history.  He  proposed  to  transfer 
the  judicature,  in  election  cases,  from  the  House  itself,  to  a 
committee  of  thirteen  members,  selected  by  the  sitting  mem- 
bers and  petitioners  from  a list  of  forty-nine,  chosen  by  bal- 
lot, — to  whom  each  party  should  add  a nominee,  to  advo- 
cate their  respective  interests.  This  tribunal,  constituted  by 
Act  of  Parliament,  was  to  decide,  without  appeal,  the  merits 
of  every  controverted  election : being,  in  fact,  a court  inde- 
pendent of  the  House,  though  composed  of  its  own  mem- 
bers.1 The  main  objection  urged  against  this  measure  was 
that  the  privileges  of  the  House  were  compromised,  and  its 
discretion  limited,  by  the  binding  obligations  of  a statute. 
It  is  certain  that  much  might  have  been  done  by  author- 
ity of  the  House  itself,  which  was  henceforth  regulated  by 
statute,  — the  only  legal  power  required,  being  that  of 
administering  an  oath.  But  Mr.  Grenville  distrusted  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  saw  no  security  for  the  perma- 
nence, or  honest  trial  of  the  new  system,  except  in  a law 
which  they  could  not  set  aside. 

This  Act  was  at  first  limited  to  one  year;  and  Horace 
Walpole  insinuates  that  Mr.  Grenville,  when  in  opposition, 
was  willing  “ to  give  a sore  wound  to  the  influence  of  the 
Crown;”  but  hoping  to  return  to  office,  took  care  not  to 
1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  904-923 ; Cavendish  Deb.  i.  476,  505. 


292 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


weaken  his  own  future  power  as  a minister.1  But  the  sug- 
gestion for  making  the  Act  temporary  proceeded  from  Lord 
Clare,2  and  not  from  Mr.  Grenville,  who  was  honestly  per- 
suaded that  the  “ system  must  end  in  the  ruin  of  public  lib- 
erty, if  not  checked.” 3 At  this  time  his  health  and  spirits 
were  failing ; and  he  died  a few  months  after  the  passing  of 
his  measure. 

The  Grenville  Act  was  continued  from  time  to  time  ; and 
Madeperpet-  in  1774,  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  brought  in  a bill  to 
ual-  make  it  perpetual.  It  encountered  a strong  oppo- 

sition, especially  from  Mr.  Fox,  who  dreaded  the  surrender 
of  the  privileges  of  the  House ; but  the  successful  operation 
of  the  Act,  in  the  five  cases  which  had  already  been  tried 
under  its  provisions,  was  so  generally  acknowledged,  that  the 
bill  was  passed  by  a large  majority.4  “ This  happy  event,” 
wrote  Lord  Chatham,  “ is  a dawn  of  better  times : it  is  the 
last  prop  of  Parliament : should  it  be  lost  in  its  passage,  the 
legislature  will  fall  into  incurable  contempt,  and  detestation 
of  the  nation.”  “ The  Act  does  honor  to  the  statute-book, 
and  will  endear  forever  the  memory  of  the  framer.”  5 

This  Act  was  passed  on  the  eve  of  another  general  elec- 
tion, which  does  not  appear  — so  far  as  evidence  is  accessi- 
ble — to  have  been  marked  by  so  much  corruption  as  that 
of  1768.  But  the  value  of  boroughs  had  certainly  not  de- 
clined in  the  market,  as  Gatton  was  sold  for  75,000Z.6 

For  a time  this  measure  undoubtedly  introduced  a marked 
its  imperfect  improvement  in  the  judicature  of  the  House  of 
success.  Commons.  The  disruption  of  the  usual  party 
combinations,  at  that  period,  was  favorable  to  its  success ; 
and  the  exposure  of  former  abuses  discouraged  their  imme- 
diate renewal,  in  another  form.  But  too  soon  it  became 

1 Walp.  Mem.  Geo.  III.  ii.  384,  n. 

2 Cavendish  Deb.  i.  513. 

3 Hatsell’s  Prec.  ii.  21. 

4 250  to  122 ; Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  1071 ; Fox  Mem.  i.  95,  133. 

5 Letter  to  Lord  Shelburne,  March  6th,  1774;  Corresp.  iv.  333. 

6 Lord  Mahon’s  Hist.  vi.  27. 


TRIAL  OF  ELECTION  PETITIONS. 


293 


evident,  that  corruption  and  party  spirit  had  not  been  over- 
come.1 Crowds  now  attended  the  ballot,  as  they  had  pre- 
viously come  to  the  vote,  — not  to  secure  justice,  but  to  fur- 
ther political  interests.  The  party  which  attended  in  the 
greatest  force,  was  likely  to  have  the  numerical  majority  of 
names,  drawn  for  the  committee.  From  this  list  each  side 
proceeded  to  strike  thirteen  of  its  political  opponents ; and 
the  strongest  thus  secured  a preponderance  on  the  commit- 
tee. - Nor  was  this  all.  The  ablest  men,  being  most  feared 
by  their  opponents,  were  almost  invariably  struck  off,  — a 
process  familiarly  known  as  “ knocking  the  brains  out  of  the 
committee  ; ” and  thus  the  committee  became  at  once  partial 
and  incompetent.  The  members  of  the  committee  were 
sworn  to  do  justice  between  the  rival  candidates ; yet  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  notoriously  chosen, 
their  own  party  bias,  and  a lax  conventional  morality,  - — 
favored  by  the  obscurity  and  inconsistencies  of  the  election 
law,  and  by  the  conflicting  decisions  of  incapable  tribunals, 
— led  to  this  equivocal  result : — - that  right  was  generally 
discovered  to  be  on  the  side  of  that  candidate,  who  professed 
the  same  political  opinions  as  the  majority  of  the  committee.2 
A Whig  candidate  had  scant  justice  from  a Tory  committee  ; 
a Tory  candidate  pleaded  in  vain  before  a Whig  committee. 

By  these  means,  the  majority  of  the  House  continued,  — 
with  less  directness  and  certainty,  and  perhaps  improved 
with  less  open  scandal,  * — to  nominate  their  own  ofTiection11 
members,  as  they  had  done  before  the  Grenville  commifctees* 
Act.  And  for  half  a century,  this  system,  with  slight  varia- 
tions of  procedure,  was  suffered  to  prevail.  In  1839,  how- 
ever, the  ballot  was  at  length  superseded  by  Sir  Robert 
Peel’s  Act : 3 committees  were  reduced  to  six  members,  and 
nominated  by  an  impartial  body,  — the  general  committee 

1 Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  Ill  and  n. 

2 These  evils  were  ably  exposed  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Con- 
troverted Elections  (Mr.  C.  Buller),  1837-38,  No.  44. 

3 2&  3 Viet.  c.  38;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xlv.  379;  ibid,  xlvii.  576, 
&c. 


294 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


of  elections.  The  same  principle  of  selection  has  since  been 
adhered  to  in  later  Acts,  with  additional  securities  for  im- 
partiality ; and  the  committee  has  been  finally  reduced  to 
five  members.1  The  evil  was  thus  greatly  diminished ; but 
still  the  sinister  influence  of  party  was  not  wholly  overcome. 
In  the  nomination  of  election  committees,  one  party  or  the 
other  has  necessarily  had  a majority  of  one ; and  though 
these  tribunals  have  since  been  more  able  and  judicial,  their 
constitution  and  proceedings  have  too  often  exposed  them  to 
imputations  of  political  bias. 

Such  being  the  vices  and  defects  of  the  electoral  system, 
— what  were  their  results  upon  the  House  of 

Distribution  L 

of  places  and  Commons?  Representatives  holding  their  seats 
pensions.  ^ a genera]  system  of  corruption,  could  scarcely 
fail  to  be  themselves  corrupt.  What  they  had  bought,  they 
were  but  too  ready  to  sell.  And  how  glittering  the  prizes 
offered  as  the  price  of  their  services  ! Peerages,  baronet- 
cies, and  other  titles  of  honor ; patronage  and  court  favor 
for  the  rich,  — places,  pensions,  and  bribes  for  the  needy. 
All  that  the  government  had  to  bestow,  they  could  com- 
mand. The  rapid  increase  of  honors  2 attests  the  liberality 
with  which  political  services  were  rewarded  ; while  contem- 
porary memoirs  and  correspondence  disclose  the  arts,  by 
which  many  a peerage  has  been  won. 

From  the  period  of  the  Revolution,  places  and  pensions 
Restrained  by  have  been  regarded  as  the  price  of  political  de- 
Pariiament.  pen(jence  . and  it  has  since  been  the  steady  policy 
of  Parliament  to  restrain  the  number  of  placemen,  entitled 
to  sit  in  the  House  of  Commons.  To  William  III.  fell  the 
task  of  first  working  out  the  difficult  problem  of  a constitu- 
tional government ; and  amongst  his  expedients  for  control- 
ling his  Parliaments,  was  that  of  a multiplication  of  offices. 
The  country  party  at  once  perceived  the  danger  with  which 

1 4 & 5 Viet.  c.  58,  and  11  & 12  Viet.  c.  98 ; Report  on  Controverted  Elec- 
tions, 1844,  No.  373. 

2 See  supra , p.  224,  260. 


PLACES  AND  PENSIONS. 


295 


their  newly-bought  liberties  were  threatened  from  this  cause, 
and  endeavored  to  avert  it.  In  1693,  the  Commons  passed 
a bill  to  prohibit  all  members  hereafter  chosen  from  accept- 
ing any  office  under  the  Crown ; but  the  Lords  rejected  it. 
In  the  following  year  it  was  renewed,  and  agreed  to  by  both 
Houses  ; when  the  king  refused  his  assent  to  it.  Later  in 
his  reign,  however,  this  principle  of  disqualification  was  com- 
menced, — the  Commissioners  of  Revenue  Boards  being 
the -first  to  whom  it  was  applied.1  And  at  last,  in  1700,  it 
was  enacted  that  after  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover, 
“ no  person  who  has  an  office  or  place  of  profit  under  the 
king,  or  receives  a pension  from  the  Crown,  shall  be  capable 
of  serving  as  a member  of  the  House  of  Commons.”  2 This 
too  stringent  provision,  however,  was  repealed,  — before  it 
came  into  operation,3  — early  in  the  reign  of  Anne.  It  was, 
indeed,  incompatible  with  the  working  of  constitutional  gov- 
ernment ; and  if  practically  enforced,  would  have  brought 
Parliament  into  hopeless  conflict  with  the  executive. 

By  the  Act  of  Settlement  of  that  reign,  other  restrictions 
were  introduced,  far  better  adapted  to  correct  the  Actg  of  Anne 
evils  of  corrupt  influence.  The  holder  of  every  George  i., 
new  office  created  after  the  25th  of  October,  1705, 
and  every  one  enjoying  a pension  from  the  Crown,  during 
pleasure,  was  incapacitated  from  sitting  in  Parliament ; and 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  accepting  any  old  office 
from  the  Crown,  were  obliged  to  vacate  their  seats,  though 
capable  of  reelection.4  It  was  the  object  of  this  latter  pro- 
vision to  submit  the  acceptance  of  office  by  a representative, 
to  the  approval  of  his  constituents ; a principle  which,  — not- 
withstanding several  attempts  to  modify  it,  — has  since  been 
resolutely  maintained  by  the  legislature.  Restrictions  were 
also  imposed  upon  the  multiplication  of  commissioners.5 

1 4 & 8 Will.  & Mary,  c.  21  (Stamps);  11  & 12  Will.  III.  c.  2 (Excise). 

2 12  & 13  Will.  III.  c.  2,  s.  3. 

3 4 Anne,  c.  8,  s.  25. 

4 4 Anne,  c.  8.  6 6 Anne,  c.  7. 


296 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


At  the  commencement  of  the  following  reign,  incapacity 
Secret  Pen-  was  extended  to  pensioners  for  terms  of  years  ; 1 
si°ns.  but  ag  many  pensions  were  then  secretly  granted, 
the  law  could  not  be  put  in  force.  In  the  reign  of  George 
II.  several  attempts  were  made  to  enforce  it ; but  they  all 
miscarried.2  Lord  Halifax,  in  debating  one  of  these  bills, 
said  that  secret  pensions  were  the  worst  form  of  bribery  : 
“ A bribe  is  given  for  a particular  job ; a pension  is  a con- 
stant, continual  bribe.”  3 Early  in  the  reign  of  George  III. 
Mr.  Rose  F uller  — who  had  been  a stanch  Whig,  — was 
bought  off  by  a secret  pension  of  500Z.  which  he  enjoyed  for 
many  years.  The  cause  of  his  apostasy  was  not  discovered 
till  after  his  death.4 

Still  the  policy  of  restricting  the  number  of  offices  capable 
The  Place  °f  being  held  by  members  of  the  House  of  Com- 
Biii  of  1742.  mons,  was  steadily  pursued.  In  1742  the  Place 
Bill,  which  had  been  thrice  rejected  by  the  Commons,  and 
twice  by  the  Lords,  at  length  received  the  Royal  assent.5  It 
was  stated  in  a Lords’  protest,  that  two  hundred  appointments 
were  then  distributed  amongst  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons.6  This  Act  added  many  offices  to  the  list  of  dis- 
qualifications, but  chiefly  those  of  clerks  and  other  subordi- 
nate officers  of  the  public  departments. 

By  these  measures  the  excessive  multiplication  of  offices 
had  been  restrained;  but  in  the  reign  of  George 

Places  in  the  . . , ° 

reign  of  Geo.  III.  their  number  was  still  very  considerable  ; and 
they  were  used, — almost  without  disguise,  — as 
the  means  of  obtaining  parliamentary  support.  Horace  Wal- 
pole has  preserved  a good  example  of  the  unblushing  man- 
ner, in  which  bargains  were  made  for  the  votes  of  members, 

1 1 Geo.  I.  c.  56. 

2 No  less  than  six  bills  were  passed  by  the  Commons,  and  rejected  by  the 
Lords;  Pari.  Hist.  viii.  789;  ibid.  ix.  369;  ibid.  xi.  510;  ibid.  xii.  591. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  xi.  522. 

4 Almon’s  Corr.  ii.  8;  Rockingham  Mem.  i.  79,  n. 

5 15  Geo.  II.  c.  22. 

6 Lords’  Protest,  1741 ; Pari.  Hist.  xii.  2. 


PLACES  AND  PENSIONS. 


297 


in  exchange  for  offices.  Mr.  Grenville  wrote  him  a letter,  pro- 
posing to  appoint  his  nephew,  Lord  Orford,  to  the  rangership 
of  St.  James’s  and  Hyde  Parks.  He  said,  “ If  he  does  choose 
it,  I doubt  not  of  his  and  his  friend  Boone’s  hearty  assistance, 
and  believe  I shall  see  you,  too,  much  oftener  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  This  is  offering  you  a bribe,  but  ’tis  such  a 
one  as  one  honest  good-natured  man  may,  without  offence, 
offer  to  another.”  As  Walpole  did  not  receive  this  commu- 
nication with  much  warmth,  and  declined  any  participation 
in  the  bargain,  payments  due  to  him  on  account  of  his  patent- 
offices  in  the  Exchequer,  were  stopped  at  the  Treasury,  for 
several  months.1 

The  Whig  statesmen  of  this  period,  who  were  striving  to 
reduce  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  were  keenly  Lord  Rock 
alive  to  the  means  of  corruption  which  a multi-  i^gham’s  Act 
plicity  of  places  still  afforded.  “ The  great  num- 
ber of  offices,”  said  Lord  Rockingham,  “of  more  or  less 
emolument,  which  are  now  tenable  by  parties  sitting  in 
Parliament,  really  operate  like  prizes  in  a lottery.  An 
interested  man  purchases  a seat,  upon  the  same  principle 
as  a person  buys  a lottery-ticket.  The  value  of  the  ticket 
depends  upon  the  quantum  of  prizes  in  the  wheel.”  2 3 It  was 
to  remove  this  evil,  even  more  than  for  the  sake  of  pecuniary 
saving,  that  Mr.  Burke,  in  1780,  proposed  to  abolish  thirty- 
nine  offices  held  by  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
eleven  held  by  peers.  And  by  Lord  Rockingham’s  Act  for 
the  regulation  of  the  Civil  List  expenditure  in  1782,  several 
offices  connected  with  the  government  and  royal  household 
were  suppressed,  which  had  generally  been  held  by  mem- 
bers of  Parliament ; and  secret  pensions  were  discontinued.8 

In  1793,  the  Parliament  of  Ireland  adopted  the  principles 
of  the  English  act  of  Anne,  and  disqualified  the  offices  in  ire- 
holders  of  all  offices  under  the  Crown  or  Lord- land- 

1 Nov.  21st,  1762;  Walpole*s  Mem.  i.  213-216. 

2 Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  399. 

3 22  Geo.  III.  c.  82,  Wraxall’s  Mem.  iii.  44,  50,  54.  See  also  supra , 211. 


298 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Lieutenant,  created  after  that  time.  On  the  union  with  Ire- 
land, all  the  disqualifications  for  the  Irish  Parliament,  were 
extended  to  the  Parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom ; and 
several  new  disqualifications  were  created,  in  reference  to 
other  Irish  offices.1 

The  general  scheme  of  official  disfranchisement  was  now 
complete : but  the  jealousy  of  Parliament  was  still 

Further  dis-  1 ° J 

quaiifica-  shown  by  the  disqualification  of  new  officers  ap- 
pointed by  Acts  of  Parliament.  So  constant  has 
been  this  policy,  that  upwards  of  one  hundred  statutes,  still 
in  force,  contain  clauses  of  disqualification  ; and  many  similar 
statutes  have  been  passed,  which  have  since  expired,  or  have 
been  repealed.2 

The  result  of  this  vigilant  jealousy,  has  been  a great  re- 
duction of  the  number  of  placemen  sitting  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  In  the  first  Parliament  of  George  I.  there  had 
been  two  hundred  and  seventy-one  members  holding  offices, 
pensions,  and  sinecures.  In  the  first  Parliament  of  George 
II.  there  were  two  hundred  and  fifty-seven  ; in  the  first  Par- 
liament of  George  IV.  there  were  but  eighty-nine,  exclusive 
of  officers  in  the  army  and  navy.3  The  number  of  place- 
men sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons,  has  been  further  re- 
duced by  the  abolition  and  consolidation  of  offices ; and  in 
1883  there  were  only  sixty  members  holding  civil  offices  and 
pensions,  exclusive  of  eighty-three  holding  naval  and  mili- 
tary commissions.4 

The  policy  of  disqualification  has  been  maintained  to  the 
present  time.  The  English  judges  had  been  ex- 

Judicial  offi-  , TT  n ^ , 

cers  disquaii-  eluded  from  the  House  ot  Commons,  by  the  law 
of  Parliament.  In  the  interests  of  justice,  as 
well  as  on  grounds  of  constitutional  policy,  this  exclusion 
was  extended  to  their  brethren  of  the  Scottish  bench,  in  the 

1 41  Geo.  III.  c.  52. 

2 Author’s  Pamphlet  on  the  Consolidation  of  the  Election  Laws,  1850. 

8 Report  on  Returns  made  by  Members,  1822  (542);  1823  (569);  Han- 
sard, 3d  Ser.,  ii.  1118,  n. 

^•Report  on  Members  in  Office,  1833,  No.  671. 


BRIBES  TO  MEMBERS. 


299 


reign  of  George  II.,1  and  to  the  judges  of  the  courts  in  Ire- 
land, in  the  reign  of  George  IV.2  In  1840,  the  same  prin- 
ciple was  applied  to  the  Judge  of  the  Admiralty  Court.3  All 
the  new  judges  in  equity  were  disqualified  by  the  Acts  under 
which  they  were  constituted.  The  solitary  judge  still  enjoy- 
ing the  capacity  of  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons,  is  the 
Master  of  the  Rolls.  In  1858,  a Bill  was  introduced  to 
withdraw  this  exceptional  privilege ; but  it  was  defeated  by 
a masterly  speech  of  Mr.  Macaulay.4 

These  various  disqualifications  were  deemed  necessary  for 
securing  the  independence  of  Parliament ; and  the  Vo]icy  of  dig 
policy  is  still  recognized,  when  the  dangers  they  quaiffica- 
were  designed  to  avert,  are  less  to  be  apprehended. 

It  is  true  that  independence  has  been  purchased  at  the  cost 
of  much  intellectual  eminence,  which  the  House  of  Commons 
could  ill  afford  to  spare ; but  this  sacrifice  was  due  to  consti- 
tutional freedom,  and  it  has  been  wisely  made. 

But  the  independence  of  Parliament  was  formerly  cor- 
rupted by  grosser  expedients  than  places  and  „ 

r # J r Pecuniary 

pensions.  Vulgar  bribes  were  given,  — directly  bribes  to 
and  indirectly, — for  political  support.  Our  Par- 
liamentary history  has  been  tainted  with  this  disgrace,  from 
the  reign  of  Charles  II.  far  into  that  of  George  III.  That 
Charles,  himself  unscrupulous  and  corrupt,  should  have 
resorted  to  bribery,  is  natural  enough.  His  was  a debased 
reign,  in  which  all  forms  of  corruption  flourished. 

Members  were  then  first  exposed  to  the  temptation  of 
pecuniary  bribes.  In  the  reigns  of  the  Tudors  and  the  first 
two  Stuarts,  prerogative  had  been  too  strong  to  need  the  aid 
of  such  persuasion  ; but  after  prerogative  had  been  rudely 
shaken  by  the  overthrow  of  Charles  I.,  it  was  sought  to  sup- 

1 7 Geo.  II.  c.  16. 

2 1 & 2 Geo.  IY.  c.  44. 

3 Much  to  the  personal  regret  of  all  who  were  acquainted  with  that  emi- 
nent man,  Dr.  Lushington,  who  lost  the  seat  in  which  he  had  so  long  dis- 
tinguished himself. 

4 Judges’  Exclusion  Bill,  June  1st,  1853 ; Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cxxvii. 
996. 


300 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


port  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  by  the  subtle  arts  of  corrup- 
tion. Votes  which  were  no  longer  to  be  controlled  by  fear, 
were  purchased  with  gold.  James  II.,  again,  — secure  of  a 
servile  Parliament,  and  bent  upon  ruling  once  more  by  pre- 
rogative, — disdained  the  meaner  arts  of  bribery.1 

The  Revolution,  however  favorable  to  constitutional  liberty, 
revived  and  extended  this  scandal ; and  the  circumstances  of 
the  times  unhappily  favored  its  development.  The  prerog- 
ative of  the  Crown  had  been  still  further  limited  ; the  power 
and  activity  of  Parliament  being  proportionately  increased, 
while  no  means  had  yet  been  taken  to  insure  its  responsibil- 
ity to  the  people.  A majority  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
— beyond  the  reach  of  public  opinion,  — not  accountable  to 
its  constituencies,  — and  debating  and  voting  with  closed 
doors,  — held  the  political  destinies  of  England  at  its  mercy. 
The  Constitution  had  not  yet  provided  worthier  means  of  in- 
fluence and  restraint ; and  William  III.,  though  personally 
averse  to  the  base  practices  of  Charles  II.,  was  forced  to 
permit  their  use.  His  reign,  otherwise  conducive  to  freedom 
and  national  greatness,  was  disgraceful  to  the  character  of 
the  statesmen,  and  to  the  public  virtue  of  that  age.2 

The  practice  of  direct  bribery  notoriously  continued  in  the 
three  succeeding  reigns  ; and  if  not  proved  by  the  records  of 
Parliament,  was  attested  by  contemporary  writers,  and  by  the 
complaints  openly  made  of  its  existence.  Under  the  admin- 
istration of  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  it  was  reduced  to  an  organ- 
ized system,  by  which  a majority  of  the  House  of  Commons 
was  long  retained  in  subjection  to  the  minister.3  It  is  true, 
that  after  his  fall,  his  enemies  failed  in  proving  their  charges 

1 Burnet’s  Own  Time,  i.  626. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  v.  807,  840;  Burnet’s  Own  Time,  ii.  144,  145.  See  Lord  Mac- 
aulay’s instructive  sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Parliamentary  Cor- 
ruption, Hist.  iii.  541,  687 ; ibid.  iv.  146,  305,  427,  478,  545,  and  551 ; Com. 
Journ.  xi.  331,  May  2d,  1695. 

8 Debates,  Lords  and  Commons,  1741,  on  motions  for  the  removal  of  Sir 
R.  Walpole,  Pari.  Hist.  xi.  1027-1303;  Coxe’s  Mem.  of  Sir  R.  Walpole, 
i.  641,  719 ; Debates  on  appointment  of  Committee  of  Inquiry,  Pari.  Hist, 
xii.  448,  et  seq. 


BRIBES  TO  MEMBERS. 


301 


against  him ; but  the  entire  strength  of  the  court,  the  new 
ministry,  and  the  House  of  Lords,  was  exerted  to  screen  him. 
The  witnesses  refused  to  answer  questions  ; and  the  Lords 
declined  to  pass  a bill  of  indemnity,  which  would  have  re- 
moved the  ground  of  their  refusal.1  Nor  must  it  be  over- 
looked that,  however  notorious  corruption  may  be,  it  is  of 
all  things  the  most  difficult  of  proof. 

This  system  was  continued  by  his  successors,  throughout 
the  reign  of  George  II. ; and  is  believed  to  have  been 
brought  to  perfection,  under  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Henry  Pelham. 

In  approaching  the  reign  of  George  III.,  it  were  well  if 
no  traces  could  be  found  of  the  continued  exist- 

n , . . i -i  i i Bribery  un- 

ence  of  this  system ; but  unhappily  the  early  part  der  Lord 
of  this  reign  presents  some  of  its  worst  examples. 

Lord  Bute,  being  resolved  to  maintain  his  power  by  the  cor- 
rupt arts  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  secured,  by  the  promise  of 
a peerage,  the  aid  of  Walpole’s  experienced  agent,  Mr.  Henry 
Fox,  in  carrying  them  out  with  success.2  The  office  in- 
trusted to  him  was  familiarly  known  as  “ the  management  of 
the  House  of  Commons.” 

In  October,  1762,  Mr.  Grenville  had  impressed  upon  Lord 
Bute  the  difficulties  of  carrying  on  the  business  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  “ without  being  authorized  to  talk  to  the  mem- 
bers of  that  House  upon  their  several  claims  and  pretensions.”  3 
And  these  difficulties  were  effectually  overcome. 

Horace  Walpole  relates  a startling  tale  of  the  purchase  of 
votes  by  Mr.  Fox,  in  December,  1762,  in  support  of  Lord 
Bute’s  preliminaries  of  peace.  He  says,  “ A shop  was  pub- 
licly opened  at  the  Pay  Office,  whither  the  members  flocked, 
and  received  the  wages  of  their  venality  in  bank-bills,  even  to 
so  low  a sum  as  200?.  for  their  votes  on  the  treaty.  25,000?., 

1 Report  of  Committee  of  Inquiry,  1742;  Pari.  Hist.  xii.  626,  788;  Coxe’s 
Mem.  of  Sir  R.  Walpole,  i.  711. 

2 Rockingham  Mem.  i.  127. 

3 Grenville  Papers,  i.  483. 


302 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


as  Martin,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  afterwards  owned, 
were  issued  in  one  morning ; and  in  a single  fortnight,  a vast 
majority  was  purchased  to  approve  the  peace  ! ” 1 Lord 
Stanhope,  who  is  inclined  wholly  to  reject  this  circumstantial 
story,  admits  that  Mr.  Fox  was  the  least  scrupulous  of  Wal- 
pole’s pupils,  and  that  the  majority  was  otherwise  unaccount- 
able.2 The  account  is  probably  exaggerated ; but  the  char- 
acter of  Mr.  Fox  and  his  Parliamentary  associates  is  not 
repugnant  to  its  probability ; nor  does  it  stand  alone.  A 
suspicious  circumstance,  in  confirmation  of  Horace  Walpole, 
has  been  brought  to  light.  Among  Mr.  Grenville’s  papers 
has  been  preserved  a statement  of  the  secret-service  money 
from  1761  to  1769  ; whence  it  appears  that  in  the  year  end- 
ing 25th  October,  1762,  10,000/.  had  been  disbursed  to  Mr. 
Martin,  Secretary  to  the  Treasury  ; and  in  the  following 
year,  to  which  the  story  refers,  no  less  than  4 1,000/. 3 

The  general  expenditure  for  secret  service,  during  Lord 
Bute’s  period,  also  exhibits  a remarkable  excess,  as  compared 
with  other  years.  In  the  year  ending  25th  October,  1761, 
the  secret-service  money  had  amounted  to  58,000/.  Lord 
Bute  came  into  office  on  the  29th  May,  1762  ; and  in  this 
year,  ending  25th  October,  it  rose  at  once  to  82,168/.  In 
the  next  year,  — Lord  Bute  having  retired  in  April,  — it  fell 
to  61,000/.  In  1764,  it  was  reduced  to  36,837/.;  and  in 
1765,  to  29,374/.4 

The  Grenville  Ministry  distributed  bribes  or  gratuities 
with  less  profusion  than  Lord  Bute,  yet  with  so 

Under  the  J 

Grenville  little  restraint,  that  a donation  to  a member  of 

Ministry.  Parliament  appears  to  have  been  regarded  as  a 

customary  compliment.  It  might  be  offered  without  offence . 

1 Walp.  Mem.  Geo.  III.  i.  199. 

2 Lord  Mahon’s  Hist.  v.  15. 

8 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  144. 

4 There  is  an  obscurity  in  these  accounts;  but  it  seems  as  if  the  secret- 
service  money  had  been  derived  from  different  sources,  the  amount  paid 
from  one  source,  between  1761  and  1769,  being  156,000/.,  and  from  the  other 
394,507/.  The  details  of  the  latter  sum  only  are  given. 


BRIBES  TO  MEMBERS. 


303 


if  declined,  an  apology  was  felt  to  be  due  to  the  minister. 
In  the  Grenville  Papers  we  find  a characteristic  letter  from 
Lord  Say  and  Sele,  which  exemplifies  the  relations  of  the 
minister  with  his  Parliamentary  supporters. 

“London,  Nov.  26th,  1763. 

“ Honored  Sir,  — I am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  that 
freedom  of  converse  you  this  morning  indulged  me  in,  which 
I prize  more  than  the  lucrative  advantage  I then  received. 
To  show  the  sincerity  of  my  words  (pardon,  Sir,  the  perhaps 
over  niceness  of  my  disposition),  I return  inclosed  the  bill 
for  300Z.  you  favored  me  with,  as  good  manners  would  not 
permit  my  refusal  of  it,  when  tendered  by  you. 

“ P.  S.  — As  a free  horse  wants  no  spur,  so  I stand  in  need 
of  no  inducement  or  douceur , to  lend  my  small  assistance  to 
the  king,  or  his  friends  in  the  present  administration.”  1 

Mr.  Grenville,  however,  complained,  — and  apparently 
with  justice,  — “ that  the  secret-service  money  was  by  a great 
deal  less  than  under  any  other  minister.”  2 

Throughout  the  administration  of  Lord  North,  the  pur- 
chase of  votes  in  Parliament,  by  direct  pecun-  under  Lord 
iary  bribes,  was  still  a common  practice.  The  North- 
king’s  complicity,  — always  suspected,  — is  now  beyond  a 
doubt.  Writing  to  Lord  North  on  the  1st  March,  1781,  His 
Majesty  said : — “ Mr.  Robinson  sent  me  the  list  of  the 
speakers  last  night,  and  of  the  very  good  majority.  I have 
this  morning  sent  him  6000/.,  to  be  placed  to  the  same  .pur- 
pose as  the  sum  transmitted  on  the  21st  August.” 3 No 
other  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  this  letter,  than  that  the 
king  was  in  the  habit  of  transmitting  money,  to  secure  ma- 
jorities for  the  minister,  who  was  then  fighting  his  battles  in 
the  House  of  Commons. 

1 Grenville  Papers,  iii.  145. 

2 Ibid.  144. 

3 King’s  Letters  to  Lord  North;  Lord  Brougham’s  Works,  iii.  157.  Mr. 
Robinson,  as  Secretary  to  the  Treasury,  had  the  management  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  was  the  depository  of  the  Livre  rouge , supposed  to  con- 
tain the  names  of  members  retained  by  ministers.  — Wraxall  Mem.  ii.  225. 


304 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


The  system  of  bribery  did  not  long  survive  the  ministry 
„ , of  Lord  North.1  It  may  not  have  wholly  died 

Subsequent  J J 

decline  of  the  out ; and  has  probably  been  since  resorted  to,  on 
rare  and  exceptional  occasions.  But  the  power- 
ful and  popular  administration  of  Mr.  Pitt  did  not  need  such 
support.  The  Crown  had  triumphed  over  parties,  — its  in- 
fluence was  supreme,  — and  Mr.  Pitt  himself,  however  pro- 
fuse in  the  distribution  of  honors  to  his  adherents,  was  of 
too  lofty  a character,  to  encourage  the  baseness  of  his  meaner 
followers. 

Another  instrument  of  corruption  was  found,  at  the  be- 
Shares  in  ginning  of  this  reign,  in  the  raising  of  money  for 
loans  and  lot-  the  public  service,  by  loans  and  lotteries.  This 

teries  ^ * 

form  of  bribery,  though  less  direct,  was  more  capa- 
ble of  proof.  A bribe  could  be  given  in  secret ; the  value 
of  scrip  was  notorious.  In  March,  1763,  Lord  Bute  con- 
Lord  Bute’s  tracted  a loan  of  three  millions  and  a half,  for 
loan,  1763.  pUbiic  service  ; and  having  distributed  shares 

among  his  friends,  — the  scrip  immediately  rose  to  a premi- 
um of  11  per  cent,  in  the  market ! So  enormous  a miscal- 
culation of  the  terms  upon  which  a loan  could  be  negotiated, 
is  scarcely  to  be  reconciled  with  honesty  of  purpose ; and,  ac- 
cording to  the  practice  of  that  time,  the  minister  was  entirely 
free  from  control  in  the  distribution  of  the  shares.  Here  the 
country  sustained  a loss  of  385,000/. ; and  the  minister  was 
openly  charged  with  having  enriched  his  political  adherents, 
at  the  public  expense.  The  bank-bills  of  Mr.  Fox  had  been 
found  so  persuasive,  that  corruption  was  applied  on  a still 

1 Mr.  Hallam  says  that  the  practice  of  direct  bribery  of  Members  of  Par- 
liament “ is  generally  supposed  to  have  ceased  about  the  termination  of  the 
American  War.”  — Const.  Hist.  iii.  256. 

Mr.  William  Smith,  one  of  the  oldest  members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
related  the  following  anecdote  of  his  own  time : — A gentleman,  being  at 
Sir  Benjamin  Hammett’s  Bank,  heard  a Member,  one  of  Lord  North’s 
friends,  ask  to  have  a 500/.  bill  “ broken,”  which  was  done;  and  upon  the 
applicant  leaving  the  bank,  Sir  B.  Hammett  saw  a cover  lying  on  the  floor, 
which  he  picked  up  and  put  into  his  friend’s  hand,  without  comment.  It 
was  addressed  to  the  member,  “ with  Lord  North’s  compliments.” 


LOANS  AND  LOTTERIES. 


305 


larger  scale,  in  order  to  secure  the  power  of  the  minister. 
The  participation  of  many  members,  in  the  profits  of  this 
iniquitous  loan,  could  not  be  concealed ; and  little  pains  were 
taken  to  deny  it.1 

The  success  of  this  expedient  was  not  likely  to  be  soon 
forgotten.  Stock-jobbing  became  the  fashion  ; and  0f  Graf 
many  members  of  Parliament  were  notoriously  ton’s  loan, 
concerned  in  it.  Horace  Walpole,  the  chief  chron- 
icler of  these  scandals,  states  that,  in  1767,  sixty  members 
were  implicated  in  such  transactions,  and  even  the  Chancel- 
lor of  the  Exchequer  himself.2  Another  contemporary,  Sir 
George  Colebrooke,  gives  an  account  quite  as  circumstantial, 
of  the  monstrous  corruption  of  the  time.  He  says,  “The 
Duke  of  Grafton  gave  a dinner  to  several  of  the  principal 
men  in  the  city,  to  settle  the  loan.  Mr.  Townshend  came  in 
his  nightgown,  and  after  dinner,  when  the  terms  were  settled, 
and  every  one  present  wished  to  introduce  some  friend  on 
the  list  of  subscribers,  he  pretended  to  cast  up  the  sums 
already  subscribed,  said  the  loan  was  full,  huddled  up  his 
papers,  got  into  a chair,  and  returned  home,  reserving  to 
himself,  by  this  manoeuvre,  a large  share  in  the  loan.” 3 

A few  years  later,  similar  practices  were  exposed  in  an- 
other form.  Lotteries  were  then  a favorite  source  Lotteries, 
of  revenue  ; and  it  appeared  from  the  lists  of  subscribers  in 
1769  and  1770,  that  shares  had  been  allotted  to  several 
members  of  Parliament.  On  the  23d  of  April,  1771,  Mr. 
Seymour  moved  for  the  list  of  persons  who  had  subscribed 
to  the  lotteries  of  that  year,  alleging  that  it  appeared  from 
the  lists  of  1769,  that  twenty  thousand  tickets  had  been  dis- 
posed of  to  members  of  Parliament,  which  sold  at  a premium 
of  nearly  21,  each.  His  motion  was  refused.4  On  the  25th 
April,  Mr.  Cornwall  moved  to  prohibit  any  member  from 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1305 ; Adolphus,  i.  Ill ; History  of  the  late  Minority, 
307 ; “ The  North  Briton,”  No.  42;  Lord  Mahon’s  Hist.  v.  20. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  Geo.  III.  ii.  428. 

3 Cited  in  Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  100,  n. 

4 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  174. 

VOL.  I. 


20 


306 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


receiving  more  than  twenty  tickets.  He  stated  that  he  was 
“ certainly  informed,”  that  fifty  members  of  Parliament  had 
each  subscribed  for  five  hundred  tickets,  which  would  real- 
ize a profit  of  1000/.,  and  secure  the  minister  fifty  votes. 
His  motion  also  was  rejected.1 

Again,  in  1781,  the  very  circumstances  of  Lord  Bute’s 
Lord  North’s  flagitious  loan,  were  repeated  under  Lord  North, 
loan,  1781.  loan  0f  12,000,000/.  was  then  contracted,  to 
defray  the  cost  of  the  disastrous  American  war,  of  which 
lottery-tickets  formed  a part.  Its  terms  were  so  favorable 
to  the  subscribers,  that  suddenly  the  scrip,  or  omnium,  rose 
nearly  11  per  cent.2  The  minister  was  assailed  with  inju- 
rious reproaches,  and  his  conduct  was  repeatedly  denounced 
in  Parliament  as  wilfully  corrupt.  These  charges  were  not 
made  by  obscure  men;  but  by  the  Marquess  of  Rocking- 
ham, Mr.  Fox,  Mr.  Burke,  Mr.  Byng,  Sir  G.  Savile,  and 
other  eminent  members  of  Opposition.  It  was  computed  by 
Mr.  Fox,  that  a profit  of  900,000/.  would  be  derived  from 
the  loan ; and  by  others,  that  half  the  loan  was  subscribed 
for  by  members  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord  Rock- 
ingham said,  “ the  loan  was  made  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
corrupting  the  Parliament  to  support  a wicked,  impolitic, 
and  ruinous  war.”  Mr.  Fox  declared,  again  and  again,  that 
a large  sum  had  been  placed  in  the  “ hands  of  the  minister 
to  be  granted  as  douceurs  to  members  of  that  House,  . . . 
as  a means  of  procuring  and  continuing  a majority  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  upon  every  occasion,  and  to  give 
strength  and  support  to  a bad  administration.”  3 

1 Walp.  Mem.  iv.  320;  Chatham’s  Corresp.  iv.  148,  n. ; Pari.  Hist.  xvii. 
185. 

2 Sir  P.  J.  Clerke,  on  the  8th  March,  said  it  had  risen  from  9 to  11  in  the 
Alley  that  day.  Lord  North  said  it  had  only  risen  to  9,  and  had  fallen 
again  to  7&.  Lord  Rockingham  estimated  it  at  10  per  cent. 

8 Debates  in  the  Commons,  7th,  8th,  12th,  and  14th  March,  and  in  the 
Lords,  21st  March,  1781;  Pari.  History,  xxi.  1334-1386;  Rockingham 
Mem.  ii.  437;  Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  of  Fox,  i.  235-241.  Wraxall’s  Mem. 
ii.  360-375.  Among  the  subscribers  to  this  loan  were  seven  members  for 


LOANS  AND  LOTTERIES. 


307 


The  worst  feature  of  this  form  of  corruption,  was  its  ex- 
cessive and  extravagant  cost  to  the  country.  If  members 
of  Parliament  were  to  be  bribed  at  all,  — bank-notes,  ju- 
diciously distributed,  were  far  cheaper  than  improvident 
loans.  Lord  Bute  had  purchased  a majority,  on  the  pre- 
liminaries of  peace,  with  thirty  or  forty  thousand  pounds. 
Lord  North’s  experiment  laid  a burden  upon  the  people  of 
nearly  a million.  It  was  bad  enough  that  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  should  be  corrupted ; and  to  pay  so  high 
a price  for  their  corruption  was  a cruel  aggravation  of  the 
wrong. 

In  1782,  Lord  North,  in  raising  another  loan,  did  not 
venture  to  repeat  these  scandals ; but  disappointed  Lord  North,s 
his  friends  by  a new  system  of  close  subscriptions.  loan> 1782- 
This  arrangement  did  not  escape  animadversion ; but  it  was 
the  germ  of  the  modern  form  of  contracts,  by  sealed  ten- 
ders.1 Mr.  Pitt  had  himself  condemned  the  former  Discontinu- 
system  of  jobbing-loans  and  lotteries  ; and  when  systemby  Mr. 
he  commenced  his  series  of  loans  for  the  French  Pltt* 
revolutionary  wrar  in  1793,  he  took  effectual  means  to  dis- 
continue it.  That  the  evil  had  not  been  exaggerated,  may 
be  inferred  from  the  views  of  that  sagacious  statesman,  as 
expounded  by  his  biographer  and  friend  Dr.  Tomline.  Mr. 
Pitt  “ having,  while  in  opposition,  objected  to  the  practice 
of  his  predecessors  in  distributing  beneficial  shares  of  loans 
and  lottery-tickets,  under  the  market  price,  among  their 
private  friends,  and  the  Parliamentary  supporters  of  the 
Government,  adopted  a new  plan  of  contracting  for  loans 
and  lotteries  by  means  of  sealed  proposals  from  different 
persons,  which  were  opened  in  the  presence  of  each  other ; 
and  while  this  competition  insured  to  the  public,  the  best 
terms  which  could  be  obtained  under  existing  circumstances, 

70,000?. ; others  for  50,000?. ; and  one  for  100,000?. ; but  the  greater  number 
being  holders  of  scrip  only,  did  not  appear  in  the  list.  — Wraxall  Mem . 
ii.  367. 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1056;  Wraxall’s  Mem.  320. 


308 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


it  cut  off  a very  improper  source  of  showing  favor  to  indi- 
viduals, and  increasing  ministerial  influence.”  1 

One  other  form  of  Parliamentary  corruption  yet  remains 
Contractors,  to  be  noticed.  Lucrative  contracts  for  the  public 
service,  necessarily  increased  by  the  American  war,  were 
found  a convenient  mode  of  enriching  political  supporters. 
A contract  to  supply  rum  or  beef  for  the  navy,  was  as  great 
a prize  for  a member,  as  a share  in  a loan  or  lottery.  This 
species  of  reward  was  particularly  acceptable  to  the  com- 
mercial members  of  the  House.  Nor  were  its  attractions 
confined  to  the  members  who  enjoyed  the  contracts.  Con- 
stituents being  allowed  to  participate  in  their  profits,  were 
zealous  in  supporting  government  candidates.  Here  was 
another  source  of  influence,  for  which  again  the  people  paid 
too  dearly.  Heavy  as  their  burdens  were  becoming,  they 
were  increased  by  the  costly  and  improvident  contracts, 
which  this  system  of  Parliamentary  jobbing  encouraged. 
The  cost  of  bribery  in  this  form,  was  even  greater  and  more 
indefinite  than  that  of  loans  and  lotteries.  In  the  latter 
case,  there  were  some  limits  to  the  premium  on  scrip,  which 
was  public  and  patent  to  all  the  world ; but  who  could  esti- 
mate the  profits  of  a contract  loosely  and  ignorantly  — not 
to  say  corruptly  — entered  into,  and  executed  without  ade- 
quate securities  for  its  proper  fulfilment  ? These  evils  were 
notorious  ; and  efforts  were  not  wanting  to  correct  them. 

In  1779  Sir  Philip  Jennings  Clerke  obtained  leave  to 
bring  in  a bill  to  disqualify  contractors  from  sitting  in  Par- 
liament, except  where  they  obtained  contracts  at  a public 
bidding;  but  on  the  11th  of  March,  the  commitment  of  the 
bill  was  negatived.2  Again,  in  February  1780,  Sir  Philip 
renewed  his  motion,  and  succeeded  in  passing  his  bill  through 
the  Commons,  without  opposition ; but  it  was  rejected  by 
the  Lords  on  the  second  reading.3  In  1781  it  was  brought 

1 Life  of  Pitt,  iii.  533. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xx.  123-129. 

8 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  414. 


EVIDENCE  OF  CORRUPTION. 


309 


forward  a third  time,  but  was  then  lost  in  the  House  of 
Commons.1 

Meanwhile,  Lord  North's  administration  was  falling ; the 
Opposition  were  pledged  to  diminish  the  influence  of  the 
Crown,  and  to  further  the  cause  of  economic  reform ; and  in 
1782,  Sir  Philip  was  able  to  bring  in  his  bill,  and  carry  the 
second  reading.2  In  committee,  Mr.  Fox  introduced  clauses, 
which  omitted  the  exception  in  favor  of  contracts  obtained 
at  a public  bidding,  and  extended  it  to  existing  as  well  as 
future  contracts.  Immediately  afterwards,  the  Rockingham 
ministry  coming  into  office,  adopted  a measure  so  consonant 
with  their  own  policy  ; and,  under  such  auspices,  it  was  at 
length  passed.3  It  was  another  legislative  condemnation  of 
corrupt  influences  in  Parliament. 

In  weighing  the  evidence  of  parliamentary  corruption, 
which  is  accessible  to  us,  allowance  must  be 

Abuses  con- 

made  for  the  hostility  of  many  of  the  witnesses,  demned  by 
Charges  were  made  against  the  government  of 
the  day,  by  its  bitterest  opponents ; and  may  have  been  ex- 
aggerated by  the  hard  coloring  of  party.  But  they  were 
made  by  men  of  high  character  and  political  eminence ; and 
so  generally  was  their  truth  acknowledged,  that  every  abuse 
complained  of,  was  ultimately  condemned  by  Parliament. 
Were  all  the  measures  for  restraining  corruption  and  undue 
influence  groundless  ? Were  the  evils  sought  to  be  corrected 
imaginary  ? The  historian  can  desire  no  better  evidence  of 
contemporary  evils,  than  the  judgment  of  successive  Parlia- 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  1390. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1214,  1335, 1356.  Debates,  19th  March;  15th  and  17th 
April;  1st  and  27th  May,  1782. 

3 The  Bill  contained  an  exception  in  favor  of  persons  subscribing  to  a 
public  loan.  It  was  said,  however,  that  the  loan  was  a more  dangerous  en- 
gine of  influence  than  contracts,  and  ultimately  the  exception  was  omitted, 
“ it  being  generally  understood  that  a separate  Bill  should  be  brought  in 
for  that  purpose,”  which,  however,  was  never  done.  This  matter,  as  stated 
in  the  debates,  is  exceedingly  obscure  and  inconsistent,  and  scarcely  to  be 
relied  upon,  though  it  was  frequently  adverted  to,  in  discussing  the  ques- 
tion of  Baron  Rothschild’s  disability  in  1855. 


310 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


merits,  — pronounced  again  and  again,  and  ratified  by  poster- 
ity.1 The  wisdom  of  the  legislature  averted  the  ruin  of  the 
constitution,  which  the  philosophical  Montesquieu  had  pre- 
dicted, when  he  said,  “ II  perira  lorsque  la  puissance  legisla- 
tive sera  plus  corrompue  que  l’executrice.”  2 

Such  was  the  state  of  society  in  the  first  years  of  the 
state  of  soci-  reign  of  George  III.  that  the  vices  of  the  gov- 
the  reign  of  eminent  received  little  correction  from  public 
Geo.  hi.  opinion.  A corrupt  system  of  government  rep- 
resented but  too  faithfully,  the  prevalent  corruption  of  society. 
Men  of  the  highest  rank  openly  rioted  in  drunkenness, 
gambling,  and  debauchery : the  clergy  were  indifferent  to 
religion  : the  middle  classes  were  coarse,  ignorant,  and  sen- 
sual ; and  the  lower  classes  brutalized  by  neglect,  poverty, 
and  evil  examples.  The  tastes  and  habits  of  the  age  were 
low  : its  moral  and  intellectual  standard  was  debased.  All 
classes  were  wanting  in  refinement,  and  nearly  all  in  educa- 
tion. Here  were  abounding  materials  for  venal  senators, 
greedy  place-hunters,  and  corrupt  electors. 

Having  viewed  the  imperfections  of  the  representative 
How  popular  system,  and  the  various  forms  of  corruption  by 
werTkept  which  the  constitution  was  formerly  disfigured,  we 
alive*  pause  to  inquire  how  popular  principles,  states- 

manship, and  public  virtue  wTere  kept  alive,  amid  such  ad- 
verse influences  ? 3 The  country  was  great  and  glorious  ; 
and  its  history,  — though  stained  with  many  blots,  — is  such 
as  Englishmen  may  justly  contemplate  with  pride.  The 

1 In  painting  the  public  vices  of  his  age,  Cowper  did  not  omit  to  stigma- 
tize, as  it  deserved,  its  political  corruption. 

“ But  when  a country  (one  that  I could  name). 

In  prostitution  sinks  the  sense  of  shame ; 

When  infamous  Venality,  grown  bold, 

Writes  on  his  bosom,  ‘ to  be  let  or  sold .’  ” — Table  Talk. 

2 Livre  xi.  c.  6. 

3 “Of  all  ingenious  instruments  of  despotism,”  said  Sydney  Smith,  “I 
most  commend  a popular  assembly  where  the  majority  are  paid  and  hired, 
and  a few  bold  and  able  men,  by  their  brave  speeches,  make  the  people  be- 
lieve they  are  free.”  — Mem . ii.  214. 


CAUSES  FAVORING  LIBERTY. 


311 


people,  if  enjoying  less  freedom  than  in  later  times,  were  yet 
the  freest  people  in  the  world.  Their  laws,  if  inferior  to 
modern  jurisprudence,  did  not  fall  short  of  the  enlighten- 
ment of  the  age,  in  which  Parliament  designed  them.  How 
are  these  contrasts  to  be  explained  and  reconciled  ? How 
were  the  people  saved  from  misgovernment  ? What  were 
the  antidotes  to  the  baneful  abuses  which  prevailed  ? In  the 
first  -place,  parliamentary  government  attracted  the  ablest 
men  to  the  service  of  the  state.  Whether  they  owed  their 
seats  to  the  patronage  of  a peer,  or  to  the  suffrages  of  their 
fellow-countrymen,  they  equally  enlightened  Parliament  by 
their  eloquence,  and  guided  the  national  councils  by  their 
statesmanship.  In  the  next  place,  the  representation,  — 
limited  and  anomalous  as  it  was,  — comprised  some  popular 
elements  ; and  the  House  of  Commons,  in  the  worst  times, 
still  professed  its  responsibility  to  the  people.  Nor  can  it  be 
denied  that  the  small  class,  by  whom  a majority  of  the  House 
of  Commons  was  returned,  were  the  most  instructed  and  en- 
lightened  in  the  country  ; and  as  Englishmen,  were  generally 
true  to  principles  of  freedom. 

Two  other  causes,  which  exercised  a wholesome  restraint 
upon  Parliament  and  the  governing  class,  are  to  be  found  in 
the  divisions  of  party,  — finely  called  by  Sir  Bulwer  Lytton 
“ the  sinews  of  freedom,”  — and  the  growing  influence  of 
the  press.  However  prone  the  ruling  party  may  sometimes 
have  been  to  repress  liberty,  the  party  in  opposition  were 
forced  to  rely  upon  popular  principles  ; and  pledged  to -main- 
tain them,  at  least  for  a time,  when  they  succeeded  to  power. 
Party  again  supplied,  in  some  degree,  the  place  of  intelligent 
public  opinion.  As  yet  the  great  body  of  the  people  had 
neither  knowledge  nor  influence ; but  those  who  enjoyed 
political  power,  were  encouraged  by  their  rivalries  and  am- 
bition, not  less  than  by  their  patriotism,  to  embrace  those 
principles  of  good  government,  which  steadily  made  their 
way  in  our  laws  and  institutions.  Had  all  parties  combined 
against  popular  rights,  nothing  short  of  another  revolution 


312 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


could  have  overthrown  them.  But  as  they  were  divided  and 
opposed,  the  people  obtained  extended  liberties,  before  they 
were  in  a position  to  wrest  them  from  their  rulers,  by  means 
of  a free  representation. 

Meanwhile  the  press  was  gradually  creating  a more  ele- 
vated public  opinion,  to  which  all  parties  were  obliged  to 
defer.  It  was  long,  however,  before  that  great  political  agent 
performed  its  office  worthily.  Before  the  press  can  be  in- 
structive, there  must  be  enlightenment,  and  public  spirit 
among  the  people  : it  takes  its  color  from  society,  and  reflects 
its  prevailing  vices.  Hence,  while  flagrant  abuses  in  the 
government  were  tolerated  by  a corrupt  society,  the  press  was 
venal,  — teeming  with  scurrilous  libels  and  factious  false- 
hoods, in  the  interests  of  rival  parties,  — and  disfigured  by 
all  the  faults  of  a depraved  political  morality.  Let  us  be 
thankful  that  principles  of  liberty  and  public  virtue  were  so 
strong,  as  constantly  to  advance  in  society,  in  the  press,  and 
in  the  government  of  the  country. 

The  glaring  defects  and  vices  of  the  representative  system, 
Arguments  which  have  now  been  exposed,  — the  restricted 
meiftaryaRe-  and  unequal  franchise,  the  bribery  of  a limited 
form.  electoral  body,  and  the  corruption  of  the  repre- 

sentatives themselves,  — formed  the  strongest  arguments  for 
parliamentary  reform.  Some  of  them  had  been  partially 
corrected ; and  some  had  been  ineffectually  exposed  and 
denounced;  but  the  chief  evil  of  all,  demanded  a bolder 
and  more  hazardous  remedy.  The  theory  of  an  equal  rep- 
resentation, — at  no  time  very  perfect,  — had,  in  the  course 
of  ages,  been  entirely  subverted.  Decayed  boroughs,  with- 
out inhabitants,  — the  absolute  property  of  noblemen,  — and 
populous  towns  without  electors,  returned  members  to  the 
House  of  Commons  ; but  great  manufacturing  cities,  dis- 
tinguished by  their  industry,  wealth,  and  intelligence,  were 
without  representatives. 

Schemes  for  partially  rectifying  these  inequalities  were 
proposed  at  various  times,  by  statesmen  of  very  different 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


313 


opinions.  Lord  Chatham  was  the  first  to  advocate  reform. 
Speaking,  in  1766,  of  the  borough  representation,  LordChat- 
he  called  it  “ the  rotten  part  of  our  constitution  ; ” of  ^f0rm,eme 
and  said,  “It  cannot  continue  a century.  If  it  1770- 
does  not  drop,  it  must  be  amputated.”1  In  1770,  HthMay. 
he  suggested  that  a third  member  should  be  added  to  every 
county,  “ in  order  to  counterbalance  the  weight  of  corrupt  and 
venal  boroughs.”  2 Such  was  his  opinion  of  the  necessity  of 
a measure  of  this  character,  that  he  said : “ Before  the  end 
of  this  century,  either  the  Parliament  will  reform  itself  from 
within,  or  be  reformed  with  a vengeance  from  without.”3 
The  next  scheme  was  that  of  a very  notable  poli-  Mr  Wilkes,s 
tician,  Mr.  Wilkes.  More  comprehensive  than  scheme> 1776* 
Lord  Chatham’s,  — it  was  framed  to  meet,  more  directly,  the 
evils  complained  of.  In  1776,  he  moved  for  a bill  to  give 
additional  members  to  the  Metropolis,  and  to  Middlesex, 
Yorkshire,  and  other  large  counties ; to  disfranchise  the  rot- 
ten boroughs,  and  add  the  electors  to  the  county  constitu- 
ency ; and  lastly,  to  enfranchise  Manchester,  Leeds,  Sheffield, 
Birmingham,  and  “ other  rich  populous  trading  towns.” 4 
His  scheme,  indeed,  comprised  all  the  leading  principles  of 
parliamentary  reform,  which  were  advocated  for  the  next 
fifty  years  without  success,  and  have  been  sanctioned  within 
our  own  time. 

The  next  measure  for  reforming  the  Commons,  was  brought 
forward  by  a peer.  On  the  3d  June,  1780,  in  the  _ , _ ^ 

J r 7 Duke  of  Rich- 

midst  of  Lord  George  Gordon’s  riots,  the  Duke  of  mond's  Bill> 
Richmond  presented  a bill  for  establishing  annual 

1 Debates  on  the  Address,  January,  1766. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  58;  Chatham’s  Corresp.  iv.  157,  where  he  supports 
his  views  by  the  precedent  of  a Scotch  Act  at  the  Revolution.  Strangers 
were  excluded  during  this  debate,  which  is  not  reported  in  the  Parliamen- 
tary History. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  223,  n. 

4 21st  March,  1776,  Pari.  Hist,  xviii.  1287.  The  motion  was  negatived 
without  a division. 


314 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


parliaments,  universal  suffrage,  and  equal  electoral  districts.1 

It  was  rejected  without  a division. 

Nor  was  the  Duke’s  extravagant  proposal  an  isolated  sug- 

other  gestion  of  his  own.  Extreme  changes  were  at  this 

schemes  ofre-  time  popular,  — embracing  annual  parliaments,  the 
form,  1780.  B , 

extinction  ot  rotten  boroughs,  and  universal  suf- 
frage. The  graver  statesmen,  who  were  favorable  to  im- 
proved representation,  discountenanced  all  such  proposals, 
likely  to  endanger  the  more  practicable  schemes  of  economic 
reform  by  which  they  were  then  endeavoring,  — with  every 
prospect  of  success,  — to  purify  Parliament,  and  reduce  the 
influence  of  the  Crown.  The  petitioners  by  whom  they  were 
supported,  prayed  also  for  a more  equal  representation  of 
the  people ; but  it  was  deemed  prudent  to  postpone  for  a time, 
the  agitation  of  that  question.2 

The  disgraceful  riots  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  rendered 
this  time  unfavorable  for  the  discussion  of  any  political 
changes.  The  Whig  party  wTere  charged  with  instigating 
and  abetting  these  riots,  just  as,  at  a later  period,  they  be- 
came obnoxious  to  imputations  of  Jacobinism.  The  occasion 
of  the  king’s  speech  at  the  end  of  the  session  of  1780,  was 
not  lost  by  the  tottering  government  of  Lord  North.  His 
Majesty  warned  the  people  against  “ the  hazard  of  innova- 
tion ; ” and  artfully  connected  this  warning,  with  a reference 
to  “ rebellious  insurrections  to  resist  or  to  reform  the  laws.”  3 
Among  the  more  moderate  schemes  discussed  at  this  pe- 
riod, by  the  temperate  supporters  of  parliamentary  reform, 
was  the  addition  of  one  hundred  county  members  to  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  objected  to,  however,  by  some 
of  the  leading  Whigs,  “ as  being  prejudicial  to  the  democrat- 
ical  part  of  the  Constitution,  by  throwing  too  great  a weight 
into  the  scale  of  the  aristocracy.”  4 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  686. 

2 Ann.  Reg.  xxiv.  140,  194;  Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  395,  411. 

8 Pari.  Hist.  xxvi.  767. 

4 Letter  of  Duke  of  Portland ; Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  412. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


315 


Mr.  Pitt  was  now  commencing  his  great  career ; and  his 

early  youth  is  memorable  for  the  advocacy  of  a 

J J , . _ , . t n i J i Mr.  Pitt’s  mo- 

measure,  which  his  renowned  father  had  approved,  tion  for  in- 

His  first  motion  on  this  subject  was  made  in  1782,  qmry’ 1'82’ 
during  the  Rockingham  administration.  The  time  was  well 
chosen,  as  that  ministry  was  honorably  distinguished  by  its 
exertions  for  the  purification  of  Parliament.  On  the  7th 
May,^after  a call  of  the  House,  he  introduced  the  subject  in 
a speech,  as  wise  and  temperate  as  it  was  able.  In  analyz- 
ing the  state  of  the  representation,  he  described  the  Treasury 
and  other  nomination  boroughs,  without  property,  popula- 
tion, or  trade ; and  the  boroughs  which  had  no  property  or 
stake  in  the  country  but  their  votes,  which  they  sold  to  the 
highest  bidder.  The  Nabob  of  Arcot,  he  said,  had  seven  or 
eight  members  in  that  House  : and  might  not  a foreign  State 
in  enmity  with  this  country,  by  means  of  such  boroughs,  have 
a party  there  ? He  concluded  by  moving  for  a committee 
of  inquiry.  He  seems  to  have  been  induced  to  adopt  this 
course,  in  consequence  of  the  difficulties  he  had  experienced 
in  obtaining  the  agreement  of  the  friends  of  reform,  to  any 
specific  proposal.1  This  motion  was  superseded  by  reading 
the  order  of  the  day,  by  a majority  of  twenty  only.2 

Again,  in  1783,  while  in  opposition  to  the  Coalition  min- 
istry, Mr.  Pitt  renewed  his  exertions  in  the  same 

J 7 . . . . Mr.  Pitt’s  res- 

cause.  His  position  had,  in  the  mean  time,  been  oiutions,  May 
strengthened  by  numerous  petitions,  with  20,000  ’ 

signatures.3 

He  no  longer  proposed  a committee  of  inquiry,  but  came 
forward  with  three  distinct  resolutions  : — 1st,  That  effectual 
measures  ought  to  be  taken  for  preventing  bribery  and  ex- 
pense at  elections  : 2d,  That  when  the  majority  of  voters  for 
any  borough  should  be  convicted  of  corruption,  before  an 


1 Ann.  Reg.  xxv.  181. 

2 161  to  141 ; Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1416 ; Fox  Mem.  i.  321-2. 

3 All  the  petitions  which  had  been  presented  for  the  last  month,  had  been 
brought  into  the  House  by  the  Clerk,  and  laid  on  the  floor  near  the  table. 


316 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


election  committee,  the  borough  should  be  disfranchised,  and 
the  unbribed  minority  entitled  to  vote  for  the  county  : 3d, 
That  an  addition  should  be  made  to  the  knights  of  the  shire, 
and  members  for  the  metropolis.  In  support  of  his  resolu- 
tions, he  attributed  the  disasters  of  the  American  war  to  the 
corrupt  state  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  secret  influ- 
ence of  the  Crown,  which,  he  said,  “ were  sapping  the  very 
foundation  of  liberty,  by  corruption.”  Universal  suffrage  he 
condemned ; and  the  disfranchisement  of  “ rotten  boroughs ” 
he  as  yet  shrank  from  proposing.1 

Before  Mr.  Pitt  had  occasion  again  to  express  his  senti- 
,r  , . ments,  he  had  been  called  to  the  head  of  affairs, 

Yorkshire  pe- 

tition  Jan.  and  was  carrying  on  his  memorable  contest  with 
16th,  i< 84.  ||ie  Qoaiition.  On  the  16th  January,  1784,  Mr. 
Duncombe  presented  a petition  from  the  freeholders  of  York- 
shire, praying  the  House  to  take  into  serious  consideration 
the  inadequate  state  of  the  representation  of  the  people. 
Mr.  Pitt  supported  it,  saying,  that  he  had  been  confirmed 
in  his  opinions  in  favor  of  reform,  by  the  recent  conduct  of 
the  Opposition.  “ A temperate  and  moderate  reform,”  he 
said,  “ temperately  and  moderately  pursued,  he  would  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  situations,  be  ready  to  promote  to  the  utmost 
of  his  power.”  At  the  same  time,  he  avowed  that  his  cab- 
inet were  not  united  in  favor  of  any  such  measure  ; and  that 
he  despaired  of  seeing  any  cabinet  unanimous  in  the  cause. 
In  this  opinion  Mr.  Fox  signified  his  concurrence;  but  added, 
that  Mr.  Pitt  had  scarcely  introduced  one  person  into  his 
cabinet,  who  would  support  his  views  in  regard  to  parlia- 
mentary reform.2 

The  sincerity  of  Mr.  Pitt’s  assurances  was  soon  to  be 
tested.  In  the  new  Parliament  he  found  himself 

Pittas 

Keform.  Bill,  supported  by  a powerful  majority;  and  he  enjoyed 
at  once  the  confidence  of  the  king  and  the  favor 
of  the  people.  Upon  one  question  only,  was  he  powerless. 

1 Pari.  Hist,  xxiii.  827 ; Fox  Mem.  ii.  79;  Wrax.  Mem.  iii.  400. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxiv.  347. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


317 


To  his  measure  of  parliamentary  reform,  the  king  was  ad- 
verse,1 — his  cabinet  were  indifferent  or  unfriendly ; and  his 
followers  in  the  House  of  Commons,  could  not  be  brought  to 
vote  in  its  favor.  The  Tories  were  generally  opposed  to  it ; 
and  even  a large  portion  of  the  Whigs,  including  the  Duke 
of  Portland  and  Lord  Fitzwilliam,  failed  to  lend  it  their  sup- 
port.2 Public  feeling  had  not  yet  been  awakened  to  the 
necessity  of  reform ; and  the  legislature  was  so  constituted, 
that  any  effective  scheme  was  hopeless. 

In  the  first  session  of  the  new  Parliament  he  was  not  pre- 
pared with  any  measure  of  his  own ; but  he  spoke  and  voted 
in  favor  of  a motion  of  Mr.  Alderman  Sawbridge  ; and  prom- 
ised that,  in  the  next  session,  he  should  be  ready  to  bring  the 
question  forward  himself.3  He  redeemed  this  pledge,  and  on 
the  18th  April,  1785,  moved  for  leave  to  introduce  a Bill 
“ to  amend  the  representation  of  the  people  of  England,  in 
Parliament.”  Having  proved,  by  numerous  references  to 
history,  that  the  representation  had  frequently  been  changed, 
according  to  the  varying  circumstances  of  the  country ; that 
many  decayed  boroughs  had  ceased  to  return  members  to 
Parliament,  while  other  boroughs  had  been  raised  or  restored 
to  that  privilege  ; he  proposed  that  seventy -two  members 
then  returned  by  thirty-six  decayed  boroughs  should  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  counties  and  the  Metropolis.  But  this 
part  of  his  scheme  was  accompanied  by  the  startling  proposal, 
that  these  boroughs  should  not  be  disfranchised,  except  with 
the  consent  of  their  proprietors,  who  were  to  receive  Com- 
pensation from  the  State,  amounting^  to  a million  sterling! 
He  further  proposed  to  purchase  the  exclusive  rights  of  ten 
corporations,  for  the  benefit  of  their  fellow-citizens  ; and  to 
obtain  by  the  same  means,  the  surrender  of  the  right  of 
returning  members  from  four  small  boroughs,  whose  mem- 
bers could  be  transferred  to  populous  towns.  By  these  sev- 

3 See  supra,  p.  76. 

2 Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life  of  Fox,  ii.  176. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  xxiv.  975. 


318 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


eral  means,  a hundred  seats  were  to  be  redistributed.  The 
enlargement  of  the  county  constituency,  by  the  addition  of 
copyholders  to  the  freeholders,  formed  another  part  of  his 
plan.  It  was  estimated  that  by  this  change,  and  by  the  en- 
franchisement of  great  towns,  a total  addition  of  ninety-nine 
thousand  would  be  made  to  the  electoral  body.  The  portion 
of  this  scheme  most  open  to  objection  was  that  of  compensat- 
ing the  proprietors  of  boroughs ; and  he  admitted  that  it 
“ was  a tender  part ; but  at  the  same  time  it  had  become  a 
necessary  evil,  if  any  reform  was  to  take  place/’  It  seems 
indeed,  that  not  hoping  to  convince  those  interested  in  the 
existing  state  of  the  representation,  of  the  expediency  of 
reform,  he  had  sought  to  purchase  their  support.  The  bor- 
oughs which  were  always  in  the  market,  he  proposed  to  buy, 
on  behalf  of  the  State ; and  thus  to  secure  purity,  through 
the  instruments  of  corruption.  Such  a sacrifice  of  principle 
to  expediency  may  have  been  necessary : but  it  did  not  save 
his  scheme  of  reform  from  utter  failure.  His  motion  for 
leave  to  bring  in  the  bill,  was  negatived  by  a majority  of 
seventy-four.1 

As  this  was  the  last  occasion  on  wdfich  Mr.  Pitt  advocated 
Mr.  Pitt’s  sin-  cause  °f  parliamentary  reform,  his  sincerity, 
cerity.  even  that  time,  has  been  called  in  question. 
He  could  scarcely  have  hoped  to  carry  this  measure  ; but  its 
failure  wras  due  to  causes  beyond  his  control.  To  have 
staked  his  power  as  a minister,  upon  the  issue  of  a measure 
fifty  years  in  advance  of  the  public  opinion  of  his  day,  — and 
which  he  had  no  power  to  force  upon  Parliament,  — would 
have  been  the  act  of  an  enthusiast,  rather  than  a statesman. 
The  blame  of  his  subsequent  inaction  in  the  cause  was 
shared  by  the  Whigs,  who,  for  several  years,  consented 
to  its  entire  oblivion. 

In  the  five  ensuing  years  of  Mr.  Pitt’s  prosperous  admin- 
Mr  Flood’s  istration,  the  word  “ Reform  ” was  scarcely  whis- 
mo’tion,  1790.  p6red  in  Parliament.  At  length,  in  1790,  Mr. 

1 Ayes  174,  Noes  248.  Pari.  Hist.  xxv.  432-475;  Tomline’s  Life  of 
Pitt,  ii.  41. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


319 


Flood  moved  for  a bill  to  amend  the  representation  of  the 
people.  His  plan  was  to  add  one  hundred  members  to  the 
House  of  Commons,  to  be  elected  by  the  resident  household- 
ers of  every  county.  Mr.  Pitt,  on  this  occasion,  professed 
himself  to  be  as  firm  and  zealous  a friend  as  ever  to  parlia- 
mentary reform ; but  could  not  assent  to  Mr.  Flood’s  motion, 
which  was  superseded  by  the  adjournment  of  the  House.1 

Meanwhile,  the  cause  of  parliamentary  reform  had  been 
advocated  by  several  political  associations,  and  ‘-Friends of 
more  particularly  by  the  u Friends  of  the  People.”  the  People‘ 
This  society  embraced  several  men  eminent  in  politics  and 
literature ; and  twenty-eight  members  of  Parliament,  of 
whom  Mr,  Grey  and  Mr.  Erskine  took  the  lead.  It  was 
agreed  amongst  them,  that  the  subject  should  again  be  pressed 
upon  the  attention  of  Parliament. 

And,  accordingly,  on  the  30th  of  April,  1792,  Mr.  Grey 
gave  notice  of  a motion,  in  the  ensuing  session,  for  Mr  Grey,s 
an  inquiry  into  the  representative  system.2  A few  notice,  soth 
years  earlier,  the  cause  of  reform,  — honestly  sup- 
ported by  moderate  men  of  all  parties,  — might  have  pre- 
vailed ; but  the  perils  of  the  time  had  now  become  too  grave 
to  admit  of  its  fair  discussion.  That  ghastly  revolution  had 
burst  forth  in  France,  which  for  two  generations,  was  destined 
to  repress  the  liberties  of  England.  Mr.  Pitt  avowed  that 
he  still  retained  his  opinion  of  the  propriety  of  parliamentary 
reform ; but  was  persuaded  that  it  could  not  then  be  safely 
tried.  He  saw  no  prospect  of  success,  and  great  danger  of 
anarchy  and  confusion  in  the  attempt.  “ This  is  not  a time,” 
said  he,  “ to  make  hazardous  experiments.”  He  had  taken 
his  stand  against  revolutionary  principles,  and  every  question 
with  which  they  could  be  associated.  Mr.  Burke,  the  hon- 
ored reformer  of  an  earlier  period,  and  in  another  cause,3 

1 Pari.  Hist,  xxviii.  452. 

2 Mr.  Speaker  Addington  permitted  a debate  to  arise  on  this  occasion, 
which,  according  to  the  stricter  practice  of  later  times,  would  have  been 
wholly  inadmissible.  — Lord  Sidmouth’s  Life , i.  88. 

3 Mr.  Burke  had  never  supported  parliamentary  reform. 


320 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


and  many  respected  members  of  his  party,  henceforth  sup- 
ported the  minister,  and  ranged  themselves  with  the  oppo- 
nents of  reform.  A period  was  commencing,  not  only  hostile 
to  all  change,  but  repressive  of  freedom  of  opinion ; and 
the  power  of  Mr.  Pitt,  as  the  champion  of  order  against 
democracy,  was  absolute.1 

On  the  6th  of  May,  1793,  Mr.  Grey  brought  forward  the 
Mr.  Grey’s  motion,  of  which  he  had  given  notice  in  the  pre- 
motion, 1793.  yjotls  session.  First  he  presented  a long  and  elab- 
orate petition  from  the  society  of  the  Friends  of  the  People, 
exposing  the  abuses  of  the  electoral  system,  and  alleging 
various  grounds  for  parliamentary  reform.  This  petition 
having  been  read,  Mr.  Grey  proceeded  to  move  that  it  be 
referred  to  the  consideration  of  a committee.  Like  Mr.  Pitt, 
on  a former  occasion,  — and  probably  for  the  same  reasons,  — 
he  made  no  specific  proposal ; but  contented  himself  with  ar- 
guments against  the  existing  system.  A more  unsuitable  time 
for  such  a motion  could  not  have  been  found.  The  horrors  of 
the  French  revolution  had  lately  reached  their  climax,  in  the 
execution  of  the  King : many  British  subjects  had  avowed 
their  sympathy  with  revolutionary  principles  : the  country 
was  at  war  with  the  French  republic : the  Whig  party  had 
been  broken  up  ; and  the  great  body  of  the  people  were 
alarmed  for  the  safety  of  their  institutions.  At  such  a time, 
the  most  moderate  proposals  were  discountenanced ; and 
after  two  nights’  debate,  Mr.  Grey’s  motion  found  only  forty- 
one  supporters.2 

After  such  discouragement,  and  under  circumstances  so 
Mr  Grey’s  adverse,  Mr.  Grey  did  not  attempt  to  renew  the 
motion,  1797.  discussion  of  Parliamentary  reform,  until  1797. 
He  now  had  a definite  plan  ; and  on  the  26th  May,  he  moved 
for  leave  to  bring  in  a Bill  for  carrying  it  into  effect.  He 
proposed  to  increase  the  county  members  from  ninety-two  to 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxix.  1300;  Tomline’s  Life  of  Pitt,  iii.  322. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xxx.  787-925 ; Ayes  41,  Noes  232 ; Lord  J.  Russell’s  Life 
of  Fox,  ii.  281-283,  349. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


321 


one  hundred  and  thirteen,  by  giving  two  members  to  each  of 
the  three  ridings  of  the  county  of  York,  instead  of  two  for 
the  whole  county,  and  by  similar  additions  to  other  large 
counties ; and  to  admit  copyholders  and  leaseholders  for 
terms  of  years,  as  well  as  freeholders,  to  the  county  franchise. 
As  regards  the  boroughs,  he  proposed  to  substitute  for  the 
numerous  rights  of  election,  one  uniform  household  franchise. 
And  in  order  to  diminish  the  expense  of  elections,  he  sug- 
gested that  the  poll  should  be  taken,  throughout  the  whole 
kingdom,  at  one  time.  His  scheme  comprised,  in  fact,  an  out- 
line of  the  great  measure,  which  this  eminent  statesman  was 
ultimately  destined  to  mature,  as  the  consummation  of  his 
labors  during  half  a century.  His  motion  was  seconded  by 
Mr.  Erskine,  in  a speech  which  went  far  to  contradict  the 
assertion,  — - so  often  made,  — that  in  the  House  of  Commons 
this  great  forensic  orator  was  wholly  unequal  to  his  repu- 
tation. At  once  eloquent,  impassioned,  and  argumentative, 
it  displayed  those  rare  qualities,  which  have  never  been 
equalled  at  the  British  bar,  and  not  often  in  the  senate.  The 
motion  was  also  supported,  in  an  admirable  speech,  by  Mr. 
Fox.  But  vain  were  moderate  and  well-considered  plans,  — 
vain  were  eloquence  and  argument.  The  feelings,  fears,  and 
prejudices  of  the  people  were  adverse  to  the  cause : reform 
being  now  confounded  with  revolution,  and  reformers  with 
Jacobins.  Whatever  was  proposed,  — more  was  said  to  be 
intended ; and  Paine  and  the  “ Bights  of  Man  ” were  per- 
versely held  up,  as  the  true  exponents  of  the  reformer’s 
creed.  The  motion  was  rejected  by  a large  majority.1 

Again  the  question  slept  for  many  years.  The  early  part 
of  the  present  century  was  a period  scarcely  more 

tip  i ,.  . p J Further  dis- 

iavorable  for  the  discussion  of  parliamentary  re-  couragement 

form,  than  the  first  years  of  the  French  revolution. 

The  prodigious  efforts  of  the  country  in  carrying  on  the  war, 

— victories  and  disasters,  — loans,  taxes,  and  subsidies,  — 

engrossed  the  attention  of  Parliament,  and  the  thoughts  of 

1 Pari.  Hist,  xxxiii.  644.  Ayes  91,  Noes  256. 

21 


VOL.  I. 


322 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


the  people.  The  restoration  of  peace  was  succeeded  by  other 
circumstances,  almost  equally  unpropitious.  The  extreme 
pressure  of  the  war  upon  the  industrial  resources  of  the  coun- 
try, had  occasioned  suffering  and  discontent  amongst  the 
working  classes.  The  Government  were  busy  in  repressing 
sedition  ; and  the  governing  classes,  trained  under  a succes- 
sion of  Tory  administrations,  had  learned  to  scout  every 
popular  principle.  Under  such  discouragements,  many  of 
the  old  supporters  of  reform,  either  deserted  the  cause,  or 
shrank  from  its  assertion  ; while  demagogues  of  dubious 
character,  and  dangerous  principles,  espoused  it.  “ Hampden 
Clubs,”  and  other  democratic  associations,  — chiefly  composed 
of  working  men,  — were  demanding  universal  suffrage  and 
annual  Parliaments,  which  found  as  little  favor  with  the  ad- 
vocates of  reform,  as  with  its  opponents  ; and  every  moderate 
scheme  was  received  with  scorn,  by  ultra-reformers.1 

But  notwithstanding  these  adverse  conditions,  the  question 
f B of  reform  was  occasionally  discussed  in  Parlia- 

dett’s  plan,  ment.  In  1809,  it  was  revived,  after  the  lapse  of 

1809.  A 
thirteen  years.  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Fox,  — who  had 

first  fought  together  in  support  of  the  same  principles,  and 
afterwards  on  opposite  sides,  — were  both  no  more : Mr. 
Grey  and  Mr.  Erskine  had  been  called  to  the  House  of 
Peers ; and  the  cause  was  in  other  hands.  Sir  Francis  Bur- 
dett  was  now  its  advocate,  — less  able  and  influential  than  his 
predecessors,  and  an  eccentric  politician,  — but  a thorough- 
bred English  gentleman.  His  scheme  was  such  as  to  repel 
the  support  of  the  few  remaining  reformers.  He  proposed 
that  every  county  should  be  divided  into  electoral  districts ; 
that  each  district  should  return  one  member ; and  that  the 
franchise  should  be  vested  in  the  taxed  male  population.  So 
wild  a project  found  no  more  than  fifteen  supporters.2 

On  the  13  th  June,  1810,  Earl  Grey,  in  moving  an  address 
Earl  Grey,  on  state  ^ie  nation,  renewed  his  public  con- 

1810.  nection  with  the  cause  of  reform,  — avowed  his 

1 Com.  Journ.  Ixv.  360,  &c. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xiv.  1041.  Ayes  15,  Noes  74. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


323 


adherence  to  the  sentiments  he  had  always  expressed,  — and 
promised  his  future  support  to  any  temperate  and  judicious 
plan,  for  the  correction  of  abuses  in  the  representation.  He 
was  followed  by  Lord  Erskine,  in  the  same  honorable 
avowal.1 

In  1818,  Sir  F.  Burdett,  now  the  Chairman  of  the  Hamp- 
den Club  of  London,  proposed  resolutions  in  favor  gir  Bur_ 
of  universal  male  suffrage,  equal  electoral  districts,  defct’ 1818-19 • 
vote  by  ballot,  and  annual  Parliaments.  His  motion  was 
seconded  by  Lord  Cochrane ; but  found  not  another  sup- 
porter in  the  House  of  Commons.  At  this  time,  there  were 
numerous  public  meetings  in  favor  of  universal  suffrage ; 
and  reform  associations,  — - not  only  of  men  but  of  women,  — 
were  engaged  in  advancing  the  same  cause.  And  as  many 
of  these  were  advocating  female  suffrage,  Sir  F.  Burdett,  to 
avoid  misconstruction,  referred  to  male  suffrage  only.2 

In  1819,  Sir  F.  Burdett  again  brought  forward  a motion 
on  the  subject.  He  proposed  that  the  House  should,  early  in 
the  next  session,  take  into  its  consideration  the  state  of  the 
representation.  In  the  debate,  Lord  John  Russell,  who  had 
recently  been  admitted  to  Parliament,  expressed  his  opinion 
in  favor  of  disfranchising  such  boroughs  as  were  notoriously 
corrupt.  The  motion  was  superseded  by  reading  the  orders 
of  the  day.3 

At  the  commencement  of  the  following  session,  Lord  John 
Russell,  — whose  name  has  ever  since  been  honor-  Lord  j.  Rus_ 
ably  associated  with  the  cause  of  reform,  — pro-  selV1820- 
posed  his  first  motion  on  the  subject.  In  the  preceding 
session,  he  had  brought  under  the  notice  of  the  House  the 
scandalous  proceedings  at  Grampound.  He  now  took  broader 
ground,  and  embraced  the  general  evils  of  the  electoral  sys- 
tem.4 The  time  was  not  favorable  to  moderate  counsels. 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xvii.  559,  590. 

2 See  a learned  and  ingenious  article  in  the  Edin.  Rev.,  January,  1819, 
by  Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  on  Universal  Suffrage,  Art.  viii. 

3 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xl.  1440. 

4 Ibid.  xli.  302, 1091. 


324 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


On  one  side  were  the  intemperate  advocates  of  universal 
suffrage  : on  the  other  the  stubborn  opponents  of  all  change 
in  the  representation.1  But  such  was  the  moderation  of 
Lord  John’s  scheme  of  reform,  that  it  might  have  claimed 
the  support  of  the  wiser  men  of  all  parties.  He  showed,  in 
a most  promising  speech,  that  in  former  times  decayed 
boroughs  had  been  discharged  from  sending  members,  and 
populous  places  summoned  by  writ  to  return  them  ; he  de- 
scribed the  wonderful  increase  of  the  great  manufacturing 
towns,  which  were  unrepresented ; and  the  corruption  of  the 
smaller  boroughs,  which  sold  their  franchise.  He  concluded 
by  moving  resolutions  : — 1.  That  boroughs  in  which  noto- 
rious bribery  and  corruption  should  be  proved  to  prevail, 
should  cease  to  return  members,  — the  electors  not  proved 
guilty,  being  allowed  to  vote  for  the  county:  2.  That  the 
right  thus  taken  from  corrupt  boroughs,  should  be  given  to 
great  towns  with  a population  of  not  less  than  15,000,  or  to 
some  of  the  largest  counties  : 3.  That  further  means  should 
be  taken  to  detect  corruption  ; and  lastly,  that  the  borough 
of  Grampound  should  cease  to  send  members. 

As  the  motion  was  met  by  the  government  in  a concilia- 

Grampound  tolT  manner  ’ an^  as  ^or(^  Castiereagh  was  ready 
Disfranchise-  to  concur  in  the  disfranchisement  of  Grampound ; 

Lord  John  Bussell  consented  to  withdraw  his  reso- 
lutions, and  gave  notice  of  a bill  for  disfranchising  Gram- 
pound.2  The  progress  of  this  bill  was  interrupted  by  the 
death  of  the  king ; but  it  was  renewed  in  the  following  ses- 
sion, and  reached  the  House  of  Lords,  where  after  evidence 
being  taken  at  the  bar,  it  dropped  by  reason  of  the  proroga- 
tion. Again  it  was  passed  by  the  Commons,  in  1821.  That 
House  had  given  the  two  vacant  seats  to  the  great  town  of 

1 Notwithstanding  the  small  encouragement  given  at  this  time  to  the 

cause  of  reform,  it  was  making  much  progress  in  public  opinion.  Sydney 
Smith,  writing  in  1809,  said:  “I  think  all  wise  men  should  begin  to  tarn 
their  minds  reform  wards.  We  shall  do  it  better  than  Mr.  Hunt  or  Mr. 
Cobbett.  Done  it  must , and  will  be.”  — Mem.  ii.  191.  ^ 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xli.  1091-1122.  / 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


3 25 


Leeds ; bat  the  Lords  still  avoided  the  recognition  of  such  a 
principle,  by  assigning  two  additional  members  to  the  county 
of  York  : in  which  form  the  bill  was  at  length  agreed  to.1 

In  1821,  two  motions  were  made  relating  to  Parliamen- 
tary reform,  the  one  by  Mr.  Lambton,  and  the 

J 7 * ' Lamb- 

other  by  Lord  John  Russell.  On  the  17th  April,  ton’s  propo- 
the  former  explained  his  scheme.  In  lieu  of  the  ’ 
borough  representation,  he  proposed  to  divide  counties  into 
districts  containing  twenty-five  thousand  inhabitants,  each  re- 
turning a member,  — to  extend  the  franchise  for  such  dis- 
tricts, to  all  householders  paying  taxes,  — to  facilitate  polling 
by  means  of  numerous  polling-booths,  and  by  enabling  over- 
seers to  receive  votes,  — and  to  charge  the  necessary  ex- 
penses of  every  election  upon  the  poor-rates.  To  the  county 
constituencies  he  proposed  to  add  copyholders,  and  leasehold- 
ers for  terms  of  years.  After  a debate  of  two  days,  his  mo- 
tion was  negatived  by  a majority  of  twelve.2  On  the  9th  of 
May,  Lord  John  Russell  moved  resolutions  with  a T _ __ 

J , Lord  J.  Rus- 

view  to  the  discovery  of  bribery,  the  disfranchise-  sen’s  plan, 

ment  of  corrupt  boroughs,  and  the  transfer  of  the 

right  of  returning  members,  to  places  which  had  increased  in 

wealth  and  population.  His  resolutions  were  superseded  by 

the  previous  question,  which  was  carried  by  a majority  of 

thirty-one.3 

In  1822,  Lord  John  Russell  having,  as  he  said,  “ served 
an  apprenticeship  in  the  cause  of  reform,”  again  And  in  1822. 
pressed  the  matter  upon  the  notice  of  the  House.  The  cry 
for  universal  suffrage  had  now  subsided,  — tranquillity  pre- 
vailed throughout  the  country,  — and  no  circumstance  could 
be  urged  as  unfavorable  to  its  fair  consideration.  After 
showing  the  great  increase  of  the  wealth  and  intelligence  of 

1 1 & 2 Geo.  IY.  c.  47. 

2 Ayes  43,  Noes  55.  Hansard’s  Debates,  2d  Series,  v.  359-453.  Mr. 
Lambton  bad  prepared  a bill,  which  is  printed  in  the  Appendix  to  that  vol- 
ume of  Debates. 

3 Hans.  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  v.  603. 


326 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


the  country,  he  proposed  the  addition  of  sixty  members  to 
the  counties,  and  forty  to  the  great  towns  ; and,  — not  to  in- 
crease the  total  number  of  the  House  of  Commons,  — he 
suggested  that  one  hundred  of  the  smallest  boroughs  should 
each  lose  one  of  their  two  members.  His  motion,  reduced 
to  a modest  resolution,  “ that  the  present  state  of  representa- 
tion required  serious  consideration,”  was  rejected  by  a ma- 
jority of  one  hundred  and  five.1 

In  1823,  Lord  John  renewed  his  motion  in  the  same  terms, 
in  1823.  He  was  now  supported  by  numerous  petitions,  — 
and  amongst  the  number  by  one  from  seventeen  thousand 
freeholders  of  the  county  of  York ; but  after  a short  debate, 
was  defeated  by  a majority  of  one  hundred  and  eleven.2 

Again,  in  1826,  Lord  John  proposed  the  same  resolution 
to  the  House ; and  pointed  out  forcibly,  that  the 

Lord  J.  Bus-  . . ’ r_  . 

sell’s  motion,  increasing  wealth  and  intelligence  oi  the  people, 
were  daily  aggravating  the  inequality  of  the  rep- 
resentation. Nomination  boroughs  continued  to  return  a 
large  proportion  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
while  places  of  enormous  population  and  commercial  pros- 
perity were  without  representatives.  After  an  interesting 
debate,  his  resolution  was  negatived  by  a majority  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty-four.3 

In  1829,  a proposal  for  reform  proceeded  from  an  unex- 
l d bi  d Pec^ed  quarter,  and  was  based  upon  principles  en- 
ford’s  views,  tirely  novel.  The  measure  of  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion had  recently  been  carried  ; and  many  of  its 
opponents,  of  the  old  Tory  party,  — disgusted  with  their  own 
leaders,  by  whom  it  had  been  forwarded,  — were  suddenly 
converted  to  the  cause  of  parliamentary  reform.  Represent- 
ing their  opinions,  Lord  Blandford,  on  the  2d  June,  submitted 
a motion  on  the  subject.  He  apprehended  that  the  Roman 
Catholics  would  now  enter  the  borough-market,  and  purchase 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  vii.  51-139.  Ayes  164,  Noes  269. 

2 Ibid.  viii.  1260.  Ayes  169,  Noes  280. 

8 Ibid.  xv.  51.  Ayes  127,  Noes  247. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


327 


seats  for  their  representatives,  in  such  numbers  as  to  endan- 
ger our  Protestant  constitution.  His  resolutions  condemning 
close  and  corrupt  boroughs,  found  only  forty  supporters,  and 
were  rejected  by  a majority  of  seventy -four.1  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  next  session,  Lord  Blandford  repeated 
these  views,  in  moving  an  amendment  to  the  address,  repre- 
senting the  necessity  of  improving  the  representation.  Be- 
ing seconded  by  Mr.  O’Connell,  his  anomalous  position  as  a 
reformer  was  manifest.2 

Soon  afterwards  he  moved  for  leave  to  bring  in  a bill  to 
restore  the  constitutional  influence  of  the  Commons  in  the 
Parliament  of  England,  which  contained  an  elaborate  ma- 
chinery of  reform,  including  the  restoration  of  wages  to  mem- 
bers.3 His  motion  served  no  other  purpose,  than  that  of 
reviving  discussions  upon  the  general  question  of  reform. 

But  in  the  mean  time,  questions  of  less  general  application 
had  been  discussed,  which  eventually  produced  Northampton 
the  most  important  results.  The  disclosures  which  casesfelCeSter 
followed  the  general  election  of  1826,  and  the  con-  1826_27* 
duct  of  the  government,  gave  a considerable  impulse  to  the 
cause  of  reform.  The  corporations  of  Northampton  and 
Leicester  were  alleged  to  have  applied  large  sums  from  the 
corporate  funds,  for  the  support  of  ministerial  can-  Feb  2ist. 
didates.  In  the  Northampton  case,  Sir  Robert  Mar* 15th* 
Peel  went  so  far  as  to  maintain  the  right  of  a corporation  to 
apply  its  funds  to  election  purposes ; but  the  House  could  not 
be  brought  to  concur  in  such  a principle ; and  a committee 
of  inquiry  was  appointed.4  In  the  Leicester  case,  all  inquiry 
was  successfully  resisted.5 

Next  came  two  cases  of  gross  and  notorious  bribery,  — 
P enryn  and  East  Retford,  They  were  not  worse  Penryn  and 
than  those  of  Shoreham  and  Grampound,  and  caasSesRetf0rd 
might  have  been  as  easily  disposed  of ; but,  — 1826-27. 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  xxi.  1672.  Ayes  40,  Noes  114. 

2 Ibid.  xxii.  171. 

3 Ibid.  678. 

4 Ibid.  xvi.  606. 


6 Ibid.  1198. 


328 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


treated  without  judgment  by  the  ministers,  — they  precipi- 
tated a contest,  which  ended  in  the  triumph  of  reform. 

Penryn  had  long  been  notorious  for  its  corruption,  wrhicli 
had  been  already  twice  exposed  ; 1 yet  the  ministers  resolved 
to  deal  tenderly  with  it.  Instead  of  disfranchising  so  corrupt 
a borough,  they  followed  the  precedent  of  Shoreham  ; and 
proposed  to  embrace  the  adjacent  hundreds,  in  the  privilege 
of  returning  members.  But  true  to  the  principles  he  had 
already  carried  out  in  the  case  of  Grampound,  Lord  John 
Bussell  succeeded  in  introducing  an  amendment  in  the  bill, 
by  which  the  borough  was  to  be  entirely  disfranchised.2 

In  the  case  of  East  Betford,  a bill  was  brought  in  to  dis- 
franchise that  borough,  and  to  enable  the  town  of  Birming- 
ham to  return  two  representatives.  And  it  was  intended  by 
the  reformers,  to  transfer  the  franchise  from  Penryn  to 
Manchester.  The  session  closed  without  the  accomplish- 
ment of  either  of  these  objects.  The  Penryn  Disfranchise- 
ment bill,  having  passed  the  Commons,  had  dropped  in  the 
Lords ; and  the  East  Betford  bill  had  not  yet  passed  the 
Commons. 

In  the  next  session,  two  bills  were  introduced ; one  by 
, Lord  John  Bussell,  for  transferring  the  franchise 

Penryn  and  7 ° 

East  Retford  from  Penryn  to  Manchester  ; and  another  by  Mr. 
bills  1828  * j 

Tennyson,  for  disfranchising  East  Betford,  and 
giving  representatives  to  Birmingham.3  The  government 
proposed  a compromise.  If  both  boroughs  were  disfran- 
chised, they  offered,  in  one  case  to  give  two  members  to  a 
populous  town,  and  in  the  other  to  the  adjoining  hundreds.4 
When  the  Penryn  bill  had  already  reached  the  House  of 
Lords,  — where  its  Reception  was  extremely  doubtful,  — the 
East  Betford  bill  came  on  for  discussion  in  the  Commons. 
The  government  now  opposed  the  transference  of  the  fran- 
chise to  Birmingham.  Mr.  Huskisson,  however,  voted  for 

1 In  1807  and  1819. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  xvii.  682,  1855. 

8 Ibid,  xviii.  83. 

4 Ibid.  1144,  1282. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


329 


it;  and  his  proffered  resignation  being  accepted  by  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,1  led  to  the  withdrawal  of  Lord  Pal- 
merston, Lord  Dudley,  Mr.  Lamb,  and  Mr.  Grant,  — the 
most  liberal  members  of  the  government,  — the  friends  and 
colleagues  of  the  late  Mr.  Canning.  The  cabinet  was  now 
entirely  Tory ; and  less  disposed  than  ever,  to  make  con- 
cessions to  the  reformers.  The  Penryn  bill  was  soon  after- 
wards thrown  out  by  the  Lords  on  the  second  reading; 
and  the  East  Retford  bill,  — having  been  amended  so  as  to 
retain  the  franchise  in  the  hundreds,  — was  abandoned  in 
the  Commons.2 

It  was  the  opinion  of  many  attentive  observers  of  these 
times,  that  the  concession  of  demands  so  reason-  proposal  to 
able  would  have  arrested,  or  postponed  for  many  LeeTs^Sr-6 
years,  the  progress  of  reform.  They  were  re-  ^MancW 
sisted  ; and  further  agitation  was  encouraged.  In  ter> 1830- 
1830,  Lord  John  Russell,  — no  longer  hoping  to  deal  with 
Penryn  and  East  Retford,  — proposed  at  once  to  enfranchise 
Leeds,  Birmingham,  and  Manchester  ; and  to  provide  that 
the  three  next  places  proved  guilty  of  corruption,  should  be 
altogether  disfranchised.3  His  motion  was  opposed,  mainly 
on  the  ground  that  if  the  franchise  were  given  to  these 
towns,  the  claims  of  other  large  towns  could  not  afterwards 
be  resisted.  Where,  then,  were  such  concessions  to  stop  ? 
It  is  remarkable  that  on  this  occasion,  Mr.  Huskisson  said 
of  Lord  Sandon,  who  had  moved  an  amendment,  that  he 
“ was  young,  and  would  yet  live  to  see  the  day  when  the 
representative  franchise  must  be  granted  to  the  great  manu- 
facturing districts.  He  thought  such  a time  fast  approach- 
ing ; and  that  one  day  or  other,  His  Majesty’s  ministers 
would  come  down  to  that  House,  to  propose  such  a measure, 
as  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  the  country.”  Within  a 
year,  this  prediction  had  been  verified ; though  the  unfortu- 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  xix.  915. 

2 Ibid.  1530. 

3 Ibid.  xxii.  859. 


330 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


rate  statesman  did  not  live  to  see  its  fulfilment.  The  motion 
was  negatived  by  a majority  of  forty-eight ; 1 and  thus  an- 
other moderate  proposal,  — free  from  the  objections  which 
had  been  urged  against  disfranchisement,  and  not  affecting 
any  existing  rights,  — was  sacrificed  to  a narrow  and  obsti- 
nate dread  of  innovation. 

In  this  same  session,  other  proposals  were  made  of  a 
other  propo-  widely  different  character.  Mr.  O’Connell  moved 
sals  in  1830.  resolutions  in  favor  of  universal  suffrage,  trien- 
nial Parliaments,  and  vote  by  ballot.  Lord  John  Russell 
moved  to  substitute  other  resolutions,  providing  for  the  en- 
franchisement of  large  towns,  and  giving  additional  members 
to  populous  counties  ; while  any  increase  of  the  numbers  of 
the  House  of  Commons  was  avoided,  by  disfranchising  some 
of  the  smaller  boroughs,  and  restraining  others  from  sending 
more  than  one  member.2  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  the  course  of 
the  debate,  said  : “ They  had  to  consider  whether  there  was 
not,  on  the  whole,  a general  representation  of  the  people  in 
that  House ; and  whether  the  popular  voice  was  not  suffi- 
ciently heard.  For  himself  he  thought  that  it  was.”  This 
opinion  was  but  the  prelude  to  a more  memorable  declara- 
tion, by  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  Both  the  motion  and  the 
amendment  failed ; but  discussions  so  frequent  served  to 
awaken  public  sympathy  in  the  cause,  which  great  events 
were  soon  to  arouse  into  enthusiasm. 

At  the  end  of  this  session,  Parliament  was  dissolved,  in 
Dissolution  in  consequence  of  the  death  of  George  IV.  The 
183°.  government  was  weak,  — parties  had  been  com- 

pletely disorganized  by  the  passing  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Relief  Act,  — much  discontent  prevailed  in  the  country ; 
and  the  question  of  parliamentary  reform,  — which  had  been 
so  often  discussed  in  the  late  session,  — became  a popular 
topic  at  the  elections.  Meanwhile  a startling  event  abroad, 
added  to  the  usual  excitement  of  a general  election.  Scarcely 

1 Ayes  140,  Noes  188. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  2d  Ser.,  xxiv  1204. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


331 


had  the  writs  been  issued,  when  Charles  X.  of  France,  — 
having  attempted  a coup  d'etat , — lost  his  crown,  and  was 
an  exile  on  his  way  to  England.1  As  he  had  fallen,  in  vio- 
lating the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  subverting  the  represen- 
tative constitution  of  France,  this  sudden  revolution  gained 
the  sympathy  of  the  English  people,  and  gave  an  impulse 
to  liberal  opinions.  The  excitement  was  further  increased 
by  the  revolution  in  Belgium,  which  immediately  followed. 
The  new  Parliament,  elected  under  such  circumstances,  met 
in  October.  Being  without  the  restraint  of  a strong  gov- 
ernment, acknowledged  leaders,  and  accustomed  party  con- 
nections, it  was  open  to  fresh  political  impressions ; and  the 
first  night  of  the  session  determined  their  direction. 

A few  words  from  the  Duke  of  Wellington  raised  a storm, 
which  swept  away  his  government,  and  destroyed  ^ ^ 
his  party.  In  the  debate  on  the  address,  Earl  lington’s  dec- 
Grey  adverted  to  reform,  and  expressed  a hope 
that  it  would  not  be  deferred,  like  Catholic  Emancipation, 
until  government  would  be  “ compelled  to  yield  to  expedi- 
ency, what  they  refused  to  concede  upon  principle.”  This 
elicited  from  the  Duke,  an  ill-timed  profession  of  faith  in 
our  representation.  “ He  was  fully  convinced  that  the  coun- 
try possessed,  at  the  present  moment,  a legislature  wThich 
answered  all  the  good  purposes  of  legislation,  — and  this  to 
a greater  degree  than  any  legislature  ever  had  answered,  in 
any  country  whatever.  He  would  go  further,  and  say  that 
the  legislature  and  system  of  representation  possessed  the 
full  and  entire  confidence  of  the  country,  — deservedly  pos- 
sessed that  confidence,  — and  the  discussions  in  the  legisla- 
ture, had  a very  great  influence  over  the  opinions  of  the 
country.  He  would  go  still  further,  and  say,  that  if  at  the 
present  moment  he  had  imposed  upon  him  the  duty  of  form- 
ing a legislature  for  any  country,  — and  particularly  for  a 
country  like  this,  in  possession  of  great  property  of  various 

1 Parliament  was  dissolved  July  24th.  The  “ three  days  ” commenced  in 
France,  on  the  27th. 


332 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


descriptions,  — he  did  not  mean  to  assert  that  he  could  form 
such  a legislature  as  they  possessed  now,  for  the  nature  of 
man  was  incapable  of  reaching  such  excellence  at  once ; but 
his  great  endeavor  would  be  to  form  some  description  of 

legislature,  which  would  produce  the  same  results 

Under  these  circumstances  he  was  not  prepared  to  bring  for- 
ward any  measure  of  the  description  alluded  to  by  the  noble 
lord.  He  was  not  only  not  prepared  to  bring  forward  any 
measure  of  this  nature ; but  he  would  at  once  declare  that, 
as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  as  long  as  he  held  any  station  in 
the  government  of  the  country,  he  should  always  feel  it  his 
duty  to  resist  such  measures,  when  proposed  by  others.”  1 

At  another  time  such  sentiments  as  these  might  have 
passed  unheeded,  like  other  general  panegyrics  upon  the 
British  constitution,  with  which  the  public  taste  had  long 
been  familiar.  Yet,  so  general  a defence  of  our  representa- 
tive system  had  never,  perhaps,  been  hazarded  by  any 
statesman.  Ministers  had  usually  been  cautious  in  advanc- 
ing the  theoretical  merits  of  the  system,  — even  when  its 
abuses  had  been  less  frequently  exposed,  and  public  opinion 
less  awakened.  They  had  spoken  of  the  dangers  of  innova- 
tion,— they  had  asserted  that  the  system,  if  imperfect  in 
theory,  had  yet  “ worked  well,”  — they  had  said  that  the 
people  were  satisfied  and  desired  no  change,  — they  had  ap- 
pealed to  revolutions  abroad,  and  disaffection  at  home,  as 
reasons  for  not  entertaining  any  proposal  for  change ; but  it 
was  reserved  for  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  — at  a time  of 
excitement  like  the  present,  — to  insult  the  understanding 
of  the  people,  by  declaring  that  the  system  was  perfect  in 
itself,  and  deservedly  possessed  their  confidence. 

On  the  same  night,  Mr.  Brougham  gave  notice  of  a 
Fan  of  the  motion  on  the  subject  of  parliamentary  reform, 
government.  Within  a fortnight,  the  Duke’s  administration  re- 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  i.  52.  The  Duke,  on  a subsequent  occasion, 
explained  this  speech,  but  did  not  deny  that  he  had  used  the  expressions 
attributed  to  him.  — Ibid.  vii.  1186. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


333 


signed,  after  an  adverse  division  in  the  Commons,  on  the 
appointment  of  a committee  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the 
Civil  List.1  Though  this  defeat  was  the  immediate  cause  of 
their  resignation,  the  expected  motion  of  Mr.  Brougham  was 
not  without  its  influence,  in  determining  them  to  withdraw 
from  further  embarrassments. 

Earl  Grey  was  the  new  Minister  ; and  Mr.  Brougham  his 
Lord  Chancellor.  The  first  announcement  of  the  Lord  Grey’s 
premier  was  that  the  government  would  “ take  mmlstry- 
into  immediate  consideration  the  state  of  the  representation, 
with  a view  to  the  correction  of  those  defects  which  have 
been  occasioned  in  it,  by  the  operation  of  time  ; and  with  a 
view  to  the  reestablishment  of  that  confidence  upon  the 
part  of  the  people,  which  he  was  afraid  Parliament  did  not 
at  present  enjoy,  to  the  full  extent  that  is  essential  for  the 
welfare  and  safety  of  the  country,  and  the  preservation  of 
the  government.”  2 

The  government  were  now  pledged  to  a measure  of  par- 
liamentary reform ; and  during  the  Christmas  re-  , . . 

J # Agitation  m 

cess,  were  occupied  in  preparing  it.  Meanwhile,  favor  of  re- 
the  cause  was  eagerly  supported  by  the  people. 

Public  meetings  were  held,  political  unions  established,3  and 
numerous  petitions  signed,  in  favor  of  reform.  So  great 
were  the  difficulties  with  which  the  government  had  to  con- 
tend, that  they  needed  all  the  encouragement  that  the  peo- 
ple could  give.  They  had  to  encounter  the  reluctance  of  the 
king,4  — the  interests  of  the  proprietors  of  boroughs,  which 
Mr.  Pitt,  unable  to  overcome,  had  sought  to  purchase,  — the 
opposition  of  two  thirds  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  perhaps 
of  a majority  of  the  House  of  Commons,  — and  above  all, 

1 Sydney  Smith,  writing  Nov.  1830,  says:  “Never  was  any  administra- 
tion so  completely  and  so  suddenly  destroyed ; and,  I believe,  entirely  by 
the  Duke’s  declaration,  made,  I suspect,  in  perfect  ignorance  of  the  state  of 
public  feeling  and  opinion.”  — Mem.  ii.  313. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  i.  606. 

3 See  Chap.  VIII.  Press  and  Liberty  of  Opinion. 

4 Supra , p.  120. 


334 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


the  strong  Tory  spirit  of  the  country.  Tory  principles  had 
been  strengthened  by  a rule  of  sixty  years.  Not  confined 
to  the  governing  classes,  but  pervading  society  ; they  were 
now  confirmed  by  the  fears  of  impending  danger.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  too  ardent  reformers,  while  they  alarmed  the 
opponents  of  reform,  embarrassed  the  government,  and  in- 
jured the  cause,  by  their  extravagance. 

On  the  3d  February,  when  Parliament  reassembled,  Lord 
First  Reform  Grey  announced  that  the  government  had  suc- 
Biii,  1830-31.  ceec[e(j  jn  framing  “ a measure  which  would  be 
effective,  without  exceeding  the  bounds  of  a just  and  well- 
advised  moderation,”  and  which  66  had  received  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  whole  government.” 

On  the  1st  March,  this  measure  was  brought  forward  in 
the  House  of  Commons  by  Lord  John  Russell,  to  whom,  — 
though  not  in  the  cabinet,  — this  honorable  duty  had  been 
justly  confided.  In  the  House  of  Commons  he  had  already 
made  the  question  his  own ; and  now  he  was  the  exponent 
of  the  policy  of  the  government.  The  measure  was  briefly 
this : — to  disfranchise  sixty  of  the  smallest  boroughs ; to 
withdraw  one  member  from  forty-seven  other  boroughs ; to 
add  eight  members  for  the  metropolis ; thirty-four  for  large 
towns  ; and  fifty-five  for  counties,  in  England ; and  to  give 
five  additional  members  to  Scotland,  three  to  Ireland,  and 
one  to  Wales.  By  this  new  distribution  of  the  franchise, 
the  House  of  Commons  would  be  reduced  in  number  from 
six  hundred  and  fifty-eight,  to  five  hundred  and  ninety-six, 
or  by  sixty-two  members.1 

For  the  old  rights  of  election  in  boroughs,  a 10/.  house- 
hold franchise  was  substituted  ; and  the  corporations  were 
deprived  of  their  exclusive  privileges.  It  was  computed 
that  half  a million  of  persons  would  be  enfranchised.  Im- 
proved arrangements  were  also  proposed,  for  the  registration 
of  votes,  and  the  mode  of  polling  at  elections. 

This  bold  measure  alarmed  the  opponents  of  reform,  and 
i Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  ii.  1061. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


335 


failed  to  satisfy  the  radical  reformers ; but  on  the  whole,  it 
was  well  received  by  the  reform  party,  and  by  the  country. 
One  of  the  most  stirring  periods  in  our  history  was  approach- 
ing : but  its  events  must  be  rapidly  passed  over.  After  a 
debate  of  seven  nights,  the  bill  was  brought  in  without  a 
division.  Its  opponents  were  collecting  their  forces,  while 
the  excitement  of  the  people  in  favor  of  the  measure,  was 
continually  increasing.  On  the  22d  March,  the  second  read- 
ing of  the  bill  was  carried  by  a majority  of  one  only,  in  a 
House  of  six  hundred  and  eight,  — probably  the  greatest 
number  which,  up  to  that  time,  had  ever  been  assembled  at 
a division.  On  the  19th  of  April,  on  going  into  committee, 
ministers  found  themselves  in  a minority  of  eight,  on  a 
resolution  proposed  by  General  Gascoyne,  that  the  num- 
ber of  members  returned  for  England,  ought  not  to  be  di- 
minished.1 On  the  21st,  ministers  announced  that  it  was 
not  their  intention  to  proceed  with  the  bill.  On  that  same 
night,  they  were  again  defeated  on  a question  of  adjourn- 
ment, by  a majority  of  twenty-two.2 

This  last  vote  was  decisive.  The  very  next  day,  Parlia- 
ment was  prorogued  by  the  king  in  person,  “ with  Dissolution  in 
a view  to  its  immediate  dissolution.” 3 * * * * 8 It  was  1831 ' 
one  of  the  most  critical  days  in  the  history  of  our  country. 
At  a time  of  grave  political  agitation,  the  people  were 
directly  appealed  to  by  the  king’s  government,  to  support 
a measure  by  which  their  feelings  and  passions  had  been 
aroused,  — and  which  was  known  to  be  obnoxious  to  both 
Houses  of  Parliament,  and  to  the  governing  classes. 

The  people  were  now  to  decide  the  question  ; — and  they 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  iii.  1687. 

2 Ibid.  1806.  It  has  often  been  represented,  — - and  was  so  stated  by  Lord 

Brougham  on  the  following  day,  — that  this  vote  amounted  to  “ stopping 

the  supplies.”  It  cannot,  however,  bear  such  a construction,  the  question 

before  the  House  being  a motion  concerning  the  Liverpool  election.  Late 

down  in  the  list  of  orders  of  the  day,  a report  from  the  Committee  of  Supply 

was  to  be  received,  which  dropped  by  reason  of  the  adjournment. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  iii.  1810.  See  supra , p.  122. 


336 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


decided  it.  A triumphant  body  of  reformers  was  returned, 
pledged  to  carry  the  reform  bill ; and  on  the  6th 

Second  Re-  1 ° J . _ , 

form  Bill,  July,  the  second  reading  of  the  renewed  measure 
1831  " ' 0 

was  agreed  to,  by  a majority  of  one  hundred 

and  thirty-six.1  The  most  tedious  and  irritating  discussions 

ensued  in  committee,  — night  after  night ; and  the  bill  was 

not  disposed  of  until  the  21st  September,  when  it  was  passed 

by  a majority  of  one  hundred  and  nine.2 

That  the  peers  were  still  adverse  to  the  bill  was  certain  ; 
Rejected  by  but  whether,  at  such  a crisis,  they  would  venture 
the  Lords.  ^o  0pp0se  the  national  will,  was  doubtful.3  On  the 
7th  October,  after  a debate  of  five  nights,  — one  of  the  most 
memorable  by  which  that  House  has  ever  been  distinguished, 
and  itself  a great  event  in  history,  — the  bill  was  rejected 
on  the  second  reading,  by  a majority  of  forty-one.4 

The  battle  was  to  be  fought  again.  Ministers  were  too 
Third  Reform  far  pledged  to  the  people  to  think  of  resigning ; 
Bin,  1831-32.  ancj  on  tpe  motion  0f  Lord  Ebrington,  they  were 
immediately  supported  by  a vote  of  confidence  from  the 
House  of  Commons.5 

On  the  20th  October,  Parliament  was  prorogued;  and 
after  a short  interval  of  excitement,  turbulence,  and  danger, 
met  again  on  the  6th  December.  A third  reform  bill  was 
immediately  brought  in,  — changed  in  many  respects,  — and 
much  improved  by  reason  of  the  recent  census,  and  other 
statistical  investigations.  Amongst  other  changes,  the  total 
number  of  members  was  no  longer  proposed  to  be  reduced. 
This  bill  was  read  a second  time  on  Sunday  morning,  the 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  iv.  906.  Ayes,  367;  Noes,  231. 

2 Ibid.  vii.  464.  The  division  was  taken  on  the  question,  “ That  this 
Bill  do  pass.” 

3 The  position  of  the  Peers  at  this  time  has  been  already  noticed,  supra , 
p.  249,  et  seq. 

4 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  viii.  340.  This  debate  I heard  myself,  being 
present  in  the  House  of  Lords  until  the  daylight  division  on  the  7th  Octo- 
ber. It  was  the  first  debate  in  the  Lords,  which  I had  yet  had  the  privilege 
of  attending. 

6 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  viii.  380. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


337 


18th  of  December,  by  a majority  of  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
two.1  On  the  23d  March,  it  was  passed  by  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  once  more  was  before  the  House  of  Lords. 

Here  the  peril  of  again  rejecting  it  could  not  be  concealed, 

— the  courage  of  some  was  shaken,  — the  pa- 

ivG9/Ci  second 

triotism  of  others  aroused  ; and  after  a debate  of  time  by  tfie 
four  nights,  the  second  reading  was  affirmed  by 
the  narrow  majority  of  nine.  But  danger  still  awaited  it. 
The  peers  who  would  no  longer  venture  to  reject  such  a 
bill,  were  preparing  to  change  its  essential  character  by 
amendments.  Meanwhile  the  agitation  of  the  people  was 
becoming  dangerous.  Compulsion  and  physical  force  were 
spoken  of;  and  political  unions,  and  monster  meetings  as- 
sumed an  attitude  of  intimidation.  A crisis  was  approach- 
ing, — fatal,  perhaps,  to  the  peace  of  the  country : violence, 
if  not  revolution,  seemed  impending. 

The  disfranchisement  of  boroughs  formed  the  basis  of  the 
measure  ; and  the  first  vote  of  the  peers,  in  com- 

r \ Disfranchis- 

mittee  on  the  bill,  postponed  the  consideration  mg  clauses 
of  the  disfranchising  clauses,  by  a majority  of  postpcmecL 
thirty-five.2  Notwithstanding  the  assurances  of  opposition 
peers,  that  they  would  concede  a large  measure  of  reform, 

— it  was  now  evident  that  amendments  would  be  made,  to 
which  ministers  were  bound  in  honor  to  the  people  and  the 
Commons,  not  to  assent.  The  time  had  come,  when  either 
the  Lords  must  be  coerced,  or  the  ministers  must  resign.3 
This  alternative  was  submitted  to  the  king.  He  refused  to 
create  peers:  the  ministers  resigned,  and  their  resignation 
was  accepted.  Again  the  Commons  came  to  the  rescue  of 
the  bill  and  the  reform  ministry.  On  the  motion  of  Lord 
Ebrington,  an  address  was  immediately  voted  by  them,  re- 
newing their  expressions  of  unaltered  confidence  in  the  late 
ministers,  and  imploring  his  Majesty  “ to  call  to  his  councils 
such  persons  only,  as  will  carry  into  effect,  unimpaired  in 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  ix.  546. 

2 Ibid.  xii.  677. 


VOL.  I. 


22 


3 See  supra , p.  251. 


338 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


all  its  essential  provisions,  that  bill  for  reforming  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  people,  which  has  recently  passed  this 
House.” 

The  king,  meanwhile,  insisted  upon  one  condition,  — that 
Reform  Act  any  new  ministry,  — however  constituted,  — should 
passed.  pledge  themselves  to  an  extensive  measure  of  re- 
form.1 But,  even  if  the  Commons  and  the  people  had  been 
willing  to  give  up  their  own  measure,  and  accept  another  at 
the  hands  of  their  opponents,  — no  such  ministry  could  be 
formed.  The  public  excitement  was  greater  than  ever  ; and 
the  government  and  the  people  were  in  imminent  danger  of 
a bloody  collision,  when  Earl  Grey  was  recalled  to  the  coun- 
cils of  his  sovereign.  The  bill  was  now  secure.  The  peers 
averted  the  threatened  addition  to  their  numbers,  by  abstain- 
ing from  further  opposition  ; and  the  bill,  — the  Great  Char- 
ter of  1832,  — at  length  received  the  Royal  Assent.2 

It  is  now  time  to  advert  to  the  provisions  of  this  famous 
statute  ; and  to  inquire  how  far  it  corrected  the 

The  Reform  i.ii-ii  . -in 

Act,  England,  faults  of  a system,  which  had  been  complained  of 

for  more  than  half  a century.  The  main  evil  had 
been  the  number  of  nomination,  or  rotten  boroughs  enjoying 
the  franchise.  Fifty-six  of  these,  — having  less  than  two 
thousand  inhabitants,  and  returning  one  hundred  and  eleven 
members,  — were  swept  away.  Thirty  boroughs,  having  less 
than  four  thousand  inhabitants,  lost  each  a member.  Wey- 
mouth and  Melcombe  Regis  lost  two.  This  disfranchisement 
extended  to  one  hundred  and  forty-three  members.  The 
next  evil  had  been,  that  large  populations  were  unrepre- 
sented ; and  this  was  now  redressed.  Twenty -two  large 
towns,  including  metropolitan  districts,  received  the  privilege 
of  returning  two  members  ; and  twenty  more,  of  returning 
one.  The  large  county  populations  were  also  regarded  in 
the  distribution  of  seats,  — the  number  of  county  members 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xii.  783;  Ibid.  995,  the  Duke  of  Wellington’s 
explanation,  May  17th;  Roebuck’s  Whig  Ministry,  ii.  313. 

2 2 & 3 Will.  IV.  c.  45. 


PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM. 


839 


being  increased  from  ninety-four  to  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
nine.  The  larger  counties  were  divided-;  and  the  number 
of  members  adjusted  with  reference  to  the  importance  of  the 
constituencies. 

Another  evil  was  the  restricted  and  unequal  franchise. 
This  too  was  corrected.  All  narrow  rights  of  election  were 
set  aside  in  boroughs ; and  a 10 1.  household  franchise  was 
established.  The  freemen  of  corporate  towns  were  the  only 
class  of  electors  whose  rights  were  reserved  ; but  residence 
within  the  borough  wTas  attached  as  a condition  to  their  right 
of  voting.  Those  freemen,  however,  who  had  been  created 
since  March  1831,  were  excepted  from  the  electoral  privi- 
lege. Crowds  had  received  their  freedom,  in  order  to  vote 
against  the  reform  candidates  at  the  general  election : they 
had  served  their  purpose,  and  were  now  disfranchised.  Birth 
or  servitude  were  henceforth  to  be  the  sole  claims  to  the  free- 
dom of  any  city,  which  should  confer  a vote. 

The  county  constituency  was  enlarged  by  the  addition  of 
copyholders  and  leaseholders,  for  terms  of  years,  and  of  ten- 
ants-at-will  paying  a rent  of  50 1.  a year.  The  latter  class 
had  been  added  in  the  Commons,  on  the  motion  of  the  Mar- 
quess of  Chandos,  in  opposition  to  the  government.  The 
object  of  this  addition  was  to  strengthen  the  interests  of  the 
landlords,  which  it  undoubtedly  effected ; but  as  it  extended 
the  franchise  to  a considerable  class  of  persons,  it  was  at  least 
consistent  with  the  liberal  design  of  the  reform  act. 

Another  evil  of  the  representative  system  had  been  the 
excessive  expenses  at  elections.  This  too  was  sought  to  be 
mitigated  by  the  registration  of  electors,  the  division  of  coun- 
ties and  boroughs  into  convenient  polling  districts,  and  the 
reduction  of  the  days  of  polling. 

It  was  a measure,  at  once  bold,  comprehensive,  moderate, 
and  constitutional.  Popular  ; but  not  democratic  : — it  ex- 
tended liberty,  without  hazarding  revolution.  Two  years 
before,  Parliament  had  refused  to  enfranchise  a single  un- 
represented town  ; and  now  this  wide  redistribution  of  the 


340 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


franchise  had  been  accomplished  ! That  it  was  theoretically 
complete,  and  left  nothing  for  future  statesmen  to  effect,  — 
its  authors  never  affirmed  ; but  it  was  a masterly  settlement 
of  a perilous  question.  Its  defects  will  be  noticed  hereafter, 
in  recounting  the  efforts  which  have  since  been  made  to  cor- 
rect them  ; but  whatever  they  were,  — no  law  since  the  Bill 
of  Rights,  is  to  be  compared  with  it  in  importance.  Worthy 
of  the  struggles  it  occasioned,  — it  conferred  immortal  honor 
on  the  statesmen  who  had  the  wisdom  to  conceive  it  — and 
the  courage  to  command  its  success. 

The  defects  of  the  Scotch  representation,  being  even  more 
flagrant  and  indefensible  than  those  of  England, 

The  Reform  & _ _ . _ „ _ _ * 

Act,  scot-  were  not  likely  to  be  omitted  from  Lord  Grey  s 
general  scheme  of  reform.  On  the  9th  March, 
1831,  a bill  was  brought  in  to  amend  the  representation  of 
Scotland  ; but  the  discussions  on  the  English  bill,  and  the 
sudden  dissolution  of  Parliament,  interrupted  its  further  prog- 
ress. The  same  lot  awaited  it,  in  the  short  session  of  1831 ; 
but  in  1832,  its  success  was  assured  in  the  general  triumph 
of  the  cause.1  The  entire  representation  was  remodelled. 
Forty-five  members  had  been  assigned  to  Scotland  at  the 
Union : this  number  was  now  increased  to  fifty-three,  of 
whom  thirty  were  allotted  to  counties,  and  twenty- three  to 
cities  and  burghs.  The  county  franchise  was  extended  to 
all  owners  of  property  of  10Z.  a year,  and  to  certain  classes 
of  leaseholders ; and  the  burgh  franchise  to  all  10Z.  house- 
holders. 

The  representation  of  Ireland  had  many  of  the  defects  of 
„ „ the  English  system.  Several  rotten  and  nomina- 
Ac^  Ireland,  tion  boroughs,  however,  had  already  been  disfran- 
chised on  the  union  with  England ; and  disfran- 
chisement, therefore,  did  not  form  any  part  of  the  Irish  Re- 
form Act.  But  the  right  of  election  was  taken  away  from  the 
corporations,  and  vested  in  10Z.  householders ; and  large  ad- 
ditions were  made  to  the  county  constituency.  The  number 
i 2 & 3 Will.  IV.  c.  65. 


BRIBERY  SINCE  THE  REFORM  ACT. 


341 


of  members  in  Ireland,  which  the  Act  of  Union  had  settled  at 
one  hundred,  was  now  increased  to  one  hundred  and  five.1 

This  measure  was  the  least  successful  of  the  three  great 
reform  acts  of  1832.  Complaints  were  immedi-  Further  ex- 
ately  made  of  the  restricted  franchise  which  it  had 
created ; and  the  number  of  electors  registered,  chlse?  1850, 
proved  much  less  than  had  been  anticipated.  After  repeated 
discussions,  a measure  was  passed  in  1850,  by  which  the 
borough  franchise  was  extended  to  householders  rated  at  81. ; 
and  further  additions  were  made  to  the  county  franchise.2 

The  representation  of  the  country  had  now  been  recon- 
structed on  a wider  basis.  Large  classes  had  been  „ 

° Political  re- 

admitted to  the  franchise  ; and  the  House  of  Com-  suits  of  the 

mons  represented  more  freely  the  interests  and  po- 
litical sentiments  of  the  people.  The  reformed  Parliament, 
accordingly,  has  been  more  liberal  and  progressive  in  its 
policy  than  the  Parliaments  of  old ; more  vigorous  and  ac- 
tive ; more  susceptible  to  the  influence  of  public  opinion ; and 
more  secure  in  the  confidence  of  the  people.  But  in  its  con- 
stitution, grave  defects  still  remained  to  be  considered. 

Prominent  among  the  evils  of  the  electoral  system  which 
have  been  noticed,  was  that  of  bribery  at  elections. 

T-,  ! . „ , . .II  P Bribery  since 

I or  the  correction  oi  this  evil,  the  reform  acts  the  Reform 
made  no  direct  provision.  Having  increased  the 
number  of  electors,  the  legislature  trusted  to  their  independ- 
ence and  public  spirit  in  the  exercise  of  the  franchise ; and 
to  the  existing  laws  against  bribery.  But  bribery  is  the 
scandal  of  free  institutions  in  a rich  country  ; and  it  was  too 
soon  evident,  that  as  more  votes  had  been  created,  more  votes 
were  to  be  sold.  It  was  not  in  nomination  boroughs,  or  in 
boroughs  sold  in  gross,  that  bribery  had  flourished  : but  it  had 
been  the  vice  of  places  where  a small  body  of  electors,  — 
exercising  the  same  privilege  as  proprietors,  — sold  the  seats 

1 2 & 3 Will.  IY.  c.  88.  Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  iii.  862;  Ibid.  ix.  595; 
Ibid.  xiii.  119. 

2 13  & 14  Yict.  c.  69. 


342 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


which  by  their  individual  votes  they  had  the  power  of  con- 
ferring. 

The  reform  act  had  suppressed  the  very  boroughs  which 
had  been  free  from  bribery  : it  had  preserved  boroughs,  and 
classes  of  voters,  familiarized  with  corrupt  practices;  and 
had  created  new  boroughs,  exposed  to  the  same  temptations. 
Its  tendency,  therefore,  — unless  corrected  by  moral  in- 
fluences, — was  to  increase  rather  than  diminish  corruption, 
in  the  smaller  boroughs.  And  this  scandal,  — which  had 
first  arisen  out  of  the  growing  wealth  of  the  country,  — was 
now  encouraged  by  accumulations  of  property,  more  vast 
than  in  any  previous  period  in  our  history.  If  the  riches  of 
the  nabobs  had  once  proved  a source  of  electoral  corruption, 
— what  temptations  have  since  been  offered  to  voters,  by  the 
giant  fortunes  of  our  own  age  ? Cotton,  coal,  and  iron,  — 
the  steam-engine,  and  the  railway,  — have  called  into  exist- 
ence thousands  of  men,  more  wealthy  than  the  merchant- 
princes  of  the  olden  time.  The  riches  of  Australia  alone, 
may  now  vie  with  the  ancient  wealth  of  the  Indies.  Men 
enriched  from  these  sources  have  generally  been  active  and 
public  spirited,  — engaged  in  enterprises  which  parliamentary 
influence  could  promote ; ambitious  of  distinction,  — and  en- 
titled to  appeal  to  the  interests  and  sympathies  of  electors. 
Such  candidates  as  these,  if  they  have  failed  to  command 
votes  by  their  public  claims,  have  had  the  means  of  buying 
them  ; and  their  notorious  wealth  has  excited  the  cupidity  of 
electors.  This  great  addition  to  the  opulent  classes  of  society, 
has  multiplied  the  means  of  bribery  ; and  the  extension  of 
the  franchise  has  enlarged  the  field  over  which  it  has  been 
spread.  Nor  has  the  operation  of  these  causes  been  suffi- 
ciently counteracted  by  such  an  enlargement  of  borough  con- 
stituencies, as  would  have  placed  them  beyond  the  reach  of 
undue  solicitation. 

So  far  the  moral  and  social  evils  of  bribery  may  have 
been  encouraged ; but  its  political  results  have  been  less 
material.  Formerly  a large  proportion  of  the  members  of 


BRIBERY  SINCE  THE  REFORM  ACT. 


343 


the  House  of  Commons  owed  their  seats  to  corruption,  in 
one  form  or  another  : now  no  more  than  an  insignificant  frac- 
tion of  the  entire  body  are  so  tainted.  Once  the  counterpoise 
of  free  representation  was  wanting : now  it  prevails  over  the 
baser  elements  of  the  constitution.  Nor  does  the  political 
conduct  of  members  chosen  by  the  aid  of  bribery,  appear  to 
be  gravely  affected  by  the  original  vice  of  their  election. 
Eighty  years  ago,  their  votes  would  have  been  secured  by 
the  king,  or  his  ministers  : now  they  belong  indiscriminately 
to  all  parties.  Too  rich  to  seek  office  and  emolument,  — 
even  were  such  prizes  attainable,  — and  rarely  aspiring  to 
honors,  — they  are  not  found  corruptly  supporting  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  day  ; but  range  themselves  on  either  side, 
according  to  their  political  views,  and  fairly  enter  upon  the 
duties  of  public  life. 

The  exposure  of  corrupt  practices  since  1832,  has  been 
discreditably  frequent ; but  the  worst  examples  Sudbury  and 
have  been  presented  by  boroughs  of  evil  reputa-  st.  Albans 

. i-ii  n , , -|  n disfranchised. 

tion,  which  the  reform  act  had  spared.  Sudbury 
had  long  been  foremost  in  open  and  unblushing  corruption  ; 1 
which  being  continued  after  the  reform  act,  was  conclusively 
punished  by  the  disfranchisement  of  the  borough.2  St. 
Albans,  not  less  corrupt,  was  a few  years  later,  wholly  dis- 
franchised.3 Corrupt  practices  were  exposed  at  Warwick,4 
at  Stafford,5  and  at  Ipswich.6  In  corporate  towns,  freemen 
had  been  the  class  of  voters  most  tainted  by  bribery ; and 
their  electoral  rights  having  been  respected  by  the  reform 
act,  they  continued  to  abuse  them.  At  Yarmouth  their 
demoralization  was  so  general,  that  they  were  disfranchised, 
as  a body,  by  act  of  parliament.7  But  bribery  was  by  no 
means  confined  to  the  freemen.  The  10/.  householders  cre- 
ated by  the  reform  act,  were  too  often  found  unworthy  of 
their  new  franchise.  Misled  by  bad  examples,  — and  gen- 

1 See  supra , p.  271. 

2 7 & 8 Yict.  c.  53. 

3 15  & 16  Yict.  c.  9. 

4 Rep.  of  Committee,  1833,  No.  295. 


6 Ibid.  No.  537. 

6 Ibid.  1835,  No.  286. 

7 11  & 12  Yict.  c.  24. 


844 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


erally  encouraged  by  the  smallness  of  the  electoral  body,  — 
they  yielded  to  the  corrupt  influences  by  which  their  political 
virtue  has  been  assailed.  In  numerous  cases  these  constitu- 
encies, — when  their  offence  was  not  sufficiently  grave  to 
justify  a permanent  disfranchisement,  — were  punished  in  a 
less  degree,  by  the  suspension  of  the  writs.1 

Meanwhile,  Parliament  was  devising  means  for  the  more 
Measures  for  general  exposure  and  correction  of  such  disgrace- 
tionPof  brJ"  ^ Practices*  It  was  not  enough  that  writs  had 
bery*  been  suspended,  and  the  worst  constituencies  dis- 

franchised : it  was  necessary  for  the  credit  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  of  the  new  electoral  system,  that  gross  abuses 
of  the  franchise  should  be  more  effectually  restrained. 

The  first  measure  introduced  with  this  object,  was  that  of 
Bribery  Act,  I^ord  John  Pussell  in  1841.  Many  members  who 
184L  had  won  their  seats  by  bribery,  escaped  detection, 

under  cover  of  the  rules  of  evidence,  then  followed  by  elec- 
tion committees.  These  committees  had,  — not  unnaturally, 
— required  a preliminary  proof  that  persons  alleged  to  have 
committed  bribery,  were  agents  of  the  sitting  member  or  can- 
didate. Until  such  agency  had  been  established,  they  de- 
clined to  investigate  general  charges  of  bribery,  which  unless 
committed  by  authorized  agents  would  not  affect  the  election. 
When  this  evidence  was  wanting,  — as  it  often  was,  — all 
the  charges  of  bribery  at  once  fell  to  the  ground ; the  mem- 
ber retained  his  seat,  and  the  corrupt  electors  escaped  ex- 
posure. To  obviate  this  cause  of  failure,  the  act  of  1841, 2 — 
inverting  the  order  of  proceeding,  — required  committees  to 
receive  evidence  generally  upon  the  charges  of  bribery,  with- 
out prior  investigation  of  agency ; and  thus  proofs  or  impli- 
cations of  agency  have  since  been  elicited  from  the  general 
evidence.  And  even  where  agency  has  not  been  established, 
every  act  of  bribery,  by  whomsoever  committed,  has  been 
disclosed  by  witnesses,  and  reported  to  the  House. 

1 Warwick,  Carrickfergus,  Hertford,  Stafford,  Ipswich,  &c. 

2 4 & 5 Viet.  c.  57. 


BRIBERY  SINCE  THE  REFORM  ACT. 


345 


While  this  measure  has  facilitated  the  exposure  of  bribery, 
it  has  often  pressed  with  undue  severity  upon  the  sitting 
member.  Inferences  rather  than  proofs  of  agency  having 
been  accepted,  members  have  forfeited  their  seats  for  the 
acts  of  unauthorized  agents,  without  any  evidence  of  their 
own  knowledge  or  consent.  In  the  administration  of  this 
law,  committees,  — so  far  from  desiring  to  screen  delinquents, 
— have  erred  rather  on  the  side  of  severity.  The  investiga- 
tion of  corrupt  practices  has  also  been,  incidentally,  facilitated 
by  the  amendment  of  the  law  of  evidence,  which  permits  the 
personal  examination  of  sitting  members  and  candidates.1 

The  act  of  1841  was  followed  by  another,  in  the  next 
year,2  which  provides  for  the  prosecution  of  in-  Bribery  Actg 
vestigations  into  bribery,  after  an  election  com-  1842  and 
mittee  has  closed  its  inquiries,  or  where  charges 
of  bribery  have  been  withdrawn.  But  this  measure  not  hav- 
ing proved  effectual;  another  act  was  passed  in  185 2, 3 pro- 
viding for  the  most  searching  inquiries  into  corrupt  practices, 
by  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Crown,  on  the  address  of 
the  two  Houses  of  Parliament.  In  the  exposure  of  bribery, 
— - and  the  punishment  of  its  own  members  when  concerned 
in  it,  — Parliament  has  shown  no  want  of  earnestness ; but 
in  the  repression  of  the  offence  itself,  and  the  punishment  of 
corrupt  electors,  its  measures  have  been  less  felicitous.  The 
disclosures  of  commissions  have  been  barren  of  results.  At 
Canterbury  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  electors  had  been 
bribed  at  one  election,  and  seventy-nine  at  another : at  Mal- 
don,  seventy -six  electors  had  received  bribes : at  Barnstaple, 
two  hundred  and  fifty-five  ; at  Cambridge,  one  hundred  and 
eleven ; and  at  Kingston-upon-Hull  no  less  than  eight  hundred 
and  forty-seven.  At  the  latter  place,  26,606/.  had  been  spent 
in  three  elections.  In  1854,  bills  were  brought  in  for  the 
prevention  of  bribery  in  those  places,  and  the  disfranchise- 

1 Lord  Denman’s  Act;  14  & 15  Yict.  c.  99. 

2 5 & 6 Yict.  c.  102. 

8 15  & 16  Yict.  c.  57. 


346 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ment  of  the  electors  who  hacl  been  proved  to  be  corrupt.1 
But  under  the  act  which  authorized  these  inquiries,  voters 
giving  evidence  were  entitled  to  claim  an  indemnity ; and  it 
was  now  successfully  contended  that  they  were  protected  from 
disfranchisement,  as  one  of  the  penalties  of  their  offence. 
These  bills  were  accordingly  withdrawn.2  Again  in  1858, 
a commission  having  reported  that  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
three  freemen  of  Galway  had  received  bribes,  a bill  was 
introduced  for  the  disfranchisement  of  the  freemen  of  that 
borough ; but  for  the  same  reasons,  it  also  miscarried.3 

In  1860  there  were  strange  disclosures  affecting  the  an- 
Gioucester  cient  city  of  Gloucester.  This  place  had  been 
election,  1859.  jorig  familiar  with  corruption.  In  1816  a single 
candidate  had  spent  27,500/.  at  an  election ; in  1818  another 
candidate  had  spent  16,000/. ; and  now  it  appeared  that  at 
the  last  election  in  1859,  two  hundred  and  fifty  electors  had 
been  bribed,  and  eighty-one  persons  had  been  guilty  of  cor- 
rupting them.4 

Up  to  this  time,  the  places  which  had  been  distinguished 
Wakefield  by  such  mal-practices,  had  returned  members  to 
election,  1859.  parliament  prior  to  1832;  but  in  1860  the  per- 
plexing discovery  was  made,  that  bribery  had  also  exten- 
sively prevailed  in  the  populous  and  thriving  borough  of 
Wakefield,  — the  creation  of  the  reform  act.  Eighty-six 
electors  had  been  bribed ; and  such  was  the  zeal  of  the  can- 
vassers, that  no  less  than  ninety-eight  persons  had  been  con- 
cerned in  bribing  them.5 

The  writs  for  Gloucester  and  Wakefield  were  suspended, 
as  a modified  punishment  of  these  corrupt  places ; but  the 
House  of  Commons  was  as  much  at  fault  as  ever,  in  provid- 
ing any  permanent  correction  of  the  evils  which  had  been 
discovered. 

In  1854,  a more  general  and  comprehensive  measure  was 

1 Hans.  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cxxxi.  1018.  4 Report  of  Commissioners,  1860. 

2 Ibid,  cxxxiii.  1064.  5 Ibid. 

8 Ibid,  cxlix.  378,  &c. 


BRIBERY  SINCE  THE  REFORM  ACT. 


347 


devised,  for  the  prevention  of  corrupt  practices  at  elections.1 
It  restrained  candidates  from  paying  any  election 

_ . , . , . , Corrupt  prac- 

expenses,  except  through  their  authorized  agents,  tioes  Act, 
and  the  election  auditor ; and  provided  for  the 
publication  of  accounts  of  all  such  expenses.  It  was  hoped 
that  these  securities  would  encourage,  and  perhaps  enforce, 
a more  legal  expenditure  ; but  they  have  since  received 
little  credit  for  advancing  the  cause  of  purity. 

This  temporary  act  has  since  been  continued  from  time  to 
time,  and  in  1858  was  amended.  The  legality  of  Bribery  Act 
travelling  expenses  to  voters  had  long  been  a mat-  Travelling  ex- 
ter  of  doubt,  — having  received  discordant  con-  penses> 
structions  from  different  committees.  The  payment  of  such 
expenses  might  be  a covert  form  of  bribery  ; or  it  might  be 
a reasonable  accommodation  to  voters,  in  the  proper  exercise 
of  their  franchise.  This  doubt  had  not  been  settled  by  the 
act  of  1854 ; but  it  had  been  adjudged  in  a court  of  law,2 
that  the  payment  of  travelling  expenses  was  not  bribery,  if 
paid  bond  fide  to  indemnify  a voter  for  the  expenses  he  had 
incurred  in  travelling  to  the  poll,  — and  not  as  a corrupt  in- 
ducement to  vote.  The  act  of  1858,  following  the  principle 
of  this  judgment,  — but  adding  a further  security  for  its  ob- 
servance, — permitted  the  candidate,  or  his  agent  appointed 
in  writing,  to  provide  conveyance  for  voters  to  the  poll ; but 
prohibited  the  payment  of  any  money  to  voters  themselves, 
for  that  purpose.3  But  it  was  objected  at  the  time,  — and 
the  same  objection  has  since  been  repeated,  — that  the  legal- 
izing of  travelling  expenses,  even  in  this  guarded  manner, 
tends  to  increase  the  expenses  of  elections  ; and  this  debat- 
able question  will  probably  receive  further  consideration  from 
the  legislature. 

It  is  the  policy  of  these  recent  acts  to  define  clearly  the 
expenses  which  a candidate  may  lawfully  incur,  and  to  in- 

1 17  & 18  Yict.  c.  102. 

2 Cooper  v.  Slade ; 6 E.  and  B.  447 ; Rogers  on  Elections,  334. 

8 21  & 22  Yict.  c.  87. 


348 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


sure  publicity  to  his  accounts.  So  far  their  provisions  are  a 
Policy  of  leg-  security  to  the  candidate  who  is  resolved  to  resist 
cerning  bri-"  ^ie  payment  of  illegal  expenses ; and  an  embar- 
bery*  rassment,  at  least,  to  those  who  are  prepared  to 

violate  the  law.  That  they  have  not  been  effectual  in  the 
restraint  of  bribery,  the  recent  disclosures  of  election  com- 
mittees, and  commissions  sufficiently  attest.  Though  large 
constituencies  have,  in  some  instances,  proved  themselves 
accessible  to  corruption,  bribery  has  prevailed  most  exten- 
sively in  the  smaller  boroughs.  Hence  some  remedy  may 
be  sought  in  the  enlargement  of  electoral  bodies,  and  the  ex- 
tension of  the  area  of  voting.  To  repress  so  grave  an  evil, 
more  effectual  measures  will  doubtless  be  devised ; but  they 
may  still  be  expected  to  fail,  until  bribery  shall  be  unmistak- 
ably condemned  by  public  opinion.  The  law  had  treated  duel- 
ling as  murder,  yet  the  penalty  of  death  was  unable  to  repress 
it ; but  when  society  discountenanced  that  time-honored  custom, 
it  was  suddenly  abandoned.  Voters  may  always  be  found 
to  receive  bribes,  if  offered ; but  candidates  belong  to  a class 
whom  the  influence  of  society  may  restrain  from  commit- 
ting an  offence,  condemned  alike  by  the  law,  and  by  public 
opinion. 

Other  questions  affecting  the  constitution  of  Parliament, 
and  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise,  have  been  dis- 
cussed at  various  times,  as  well  before  as  since  the  reform 
act,  and  here  demand  a passing  notice. 

To  shorten  the  duration  of  Parliaments,  has  been  one  of 
Duration  of  changes  most  frequently  urged.  Prior  to 

Parliaments.  1094?  a Parliament  once  elected,  unless  dissolved 
by  the  Crown,  continued  in  being  until  the  demise  of  the 
The  Septen-  reigning  king.  One  of  the  Parliaments  of  Charles 
mai  Act.  I X.  had  sat  for  eighteen  years.  By  the  Triennial 
Act 1 every  Parliament,  unless  sooner  dissolved,  came  to  a 
natural  end  in  three  years.  On  the  accession  of  George  I. 
this  period  was  extended  to  seven  years,  by  the  well  known 
1 6 Will,  and  Mary,  c.  2. 


DURATION  OF  PARLIAMENT. 


349 


Septennial  Act.1  This  act,  though  supported  on  the  ground 
of  general  expediency,  was  passed  at  a time  of  political  dan- 
ger ; — when  the  country  had  scarcely  recovered  from  the 
rebellion  of  1715,  and  the  Jacobite  adherents  of  the  Pre- 
tender were  still  an  object  of  apprehension  to  the  govern- 
ment. 

In  the  reign  of  George  II.  attempts  were  made  to  repeal 
the  Septennial  Act ; 2 and  early  in  the  next  reign,  Alderman 
Sawbridge  submitted  motions,  year  after  year,  until  his 
death,  for  shortening  the  duration  of  Parliaments.  In  1771 
Lord  Chatham  “ with  the  most  deliberate  and  solemn  con- 
viction declared  himself  a convert  to  triennial  Parliaments.”  3 
The  question  afterwards  became  associated  with  plans  of 
Parliamentary  reform.  It  formed  part  of  the  scheme  pro- 
posed by  the  “ Friends  of  the  People”  in  1792.  At  that 
period,  and  again  in  1797,  it  was  advocated  by  Mr.  Grey,  in 
connection  with  an  improved  representation,  as  one  of  the 
means  of  increasing  the  responsibility  of  Parliament  to  the 
people.4  The  advocates  of  a measure  for  shortening  the  du- 
ration of  Parliaments,  were  not  then  agreed  as  to  the  proper 
limit  to  be  substituted  : whether  one,  three,  or  five  years.5 
But  annual  Parliaments  have  generally  been  embraced  in 
schemes  of  radical  reform. 

In  times  more  recent,  the  repeal  of  the  Septennial  Act, 
— as  a distinct  question  of  public  policy,  — has  often  been 
fairly  and  temperately  discussed  in  Parliament.  In  1817 
Mr.  Brougham  gave  notice  of  a motion  on  the  subject ; but 
did  not  bring  it  forward.  In  1818  Sir  Robert  Heron  moved 
for  leave  to  bring  in  a bill,  and  was  supported  by  Sir  Sam- 
uel Romilly  and  Mr.  Brougham ; but  the  proposal  met  with 
little  favor  or  attention.6  The  subject  was  not  revived  until 
after  the  passing  of  the  reform  act.  It  was  then  argued 
with  much  ability  by  Mr.  Tennyson,  in  1833,  1834,  and 

1 1 Geo.  I.  c.  38.  4 Pari.  Hist,  xxxiii.  650. 

2 In  1734  and  1741.  5 Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  395. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  223.  6 Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xxxviii.  802. 


350 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


1837 ; and  on  each  occasion  met  with  the  support  of  con- 
siderable minorities.1  On  the  last  occasion,  the  motion  was 
defeated  by  a majority  of  nine  only.2  It  did  not,  however, 
receive  the  support  of  any  of  the  leading  statesmen,  who 
had  recently  carried  parliamentary  reform.  That  measure 
had  greatly  increased  the  responsibility  of  the  House  of 
Commons  to  the  people  ; and  its  authors  were  satisfied  that 
no  further  change  was  then  required  in  the  constitution  of 
Parliament.  In  1843,  Mr.  Sharman  Crawfurd  revived  the 
question  ; but  met  with  scant  encouragement.3  Lastly,  in 
1849,  Mr.  Tennyson  D’Eyncourt  obtained  leave  to  bring  in 
a bill,  by  a majority  of  five.4  But  notwithstanding  this  un- 
expected success,  the  question,  if  discussed  elsewhere  as  a 
matter  of  theoretical  speculation,  has  since  ceased  to  occupy 
the  attention  of  Parliament. 

The  repeal  of  the  Septennial  Act  has  been  repeatedly  ad- 
Arguments  vocated  on  the  ground  that  the  Parliament  of 
Septennial  George  I.  had  abused  its  trust,  in  prolonging  its 
Act*  own  existence ; and  that,  even  admitting  the  over- 

ruling necessity  of  the  occasion,  — the  measure  should  at 
least  have  been  temporary.  To  this  it  has  been  answered, 
that  if  any  wrong  was  done,  it  was  committed  against  the 
people  of  that  day,  to  whom  no  reparation  can  now  be 
made.  But  to  contend  that  there  was  any  breach  of  trust, 
is  to  limit  the  authority  of  Parliament,  within  bounds  not 
recognized  by  the  constitution.  Parliament  has  not  a lim- 
ited authority,  — expressly  delegated  to  it ; but  has  absolute 
power  to  make  or  repeal  any  law ; and  every  one  of  its  acts 
is  again  open  to  revision.  Without  a prior  dissolution  of 
Parliament,  the  Unions  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  were  ef- 
fected, at  an  interval  of  nearly  a century ; — measures  in- 
volving the  extinction  of  the  Parliaments  of  those  countries, 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xix.  HOT ; Ibid,  xxiii.  1036 ; Ibid,  xxxviii.  680. 

2 Ayes  87,  Noes  96. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  lxix.  490. 

4 Ayes  46,  Noes  41.  Hans.  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cv.  848. 


DURATION  OF  PARLIAMENT. 


351 


and  a fundamental  change  in  that  of  England,  much  greater 
than  the  Septennial  Act  had  made.  That  act  could  have 
been  repealed  at  any  time,  if  Parliament  had  deemed  it  advis- 
able ; and  no  other  ground  than  that  of  expediency,  can  now  be 
reasonably  urged,  for  shortening  the  duration  of  Parliaments. 

The  main  ground,  however,  on  which  this  change  has 
been  rested,  is  the  propriety  of  rendering  the  representatives 
of  ther  people,  more  frequently  accountable  to  their  constitu- 
ents. The  shorter  the  period  for  w^hich  authority  is  in- 
trusted to  them,  — the  more  guarded  would  they  be  in  its 
exercise,  and  the  more  amenable  to  public  opinion.  It  is 
said  that  a Parliament  cannot  be  trusted,  if  independent  of 
the  people,  and  exposed  to  the  influence  of  ministers,  for 
seven  years.  And  again,  the  circumstances  of  the  country 
are  likely  to  be  changed  during  so  prolonged  a period ; and 
the  conduct  of  members,  approved  at  first,  may  afterwards 
be  condemned. 

On  the  other  side  it  has  been  argued,  that  in  practice  no 
Parliament  is  permitted  to  continue  longer  than 

z n . Arguments 

six  years  ; and  that  frequent  dissolutions  have  against 
reduced  Parliaments,  at  several  periods,  to  an  change* 
average  duration  of  three  or  four  years.1  If  Parliaments 
were  elected  for  three  years  only,  they  would  often  be 
reduced  by  various  contingencies,  to  annual  Parliaments. 
They  are  already  elected  often  enough  to  make  them  re- 
sponsible to  their  constituents ; and  more  frequent  elections 
would  unduly  foment  political  excitement,  and  increase  the 
expenses  of  elections,  which  are  already  a just  ground  of 
complaint. 

Of  late  years  the  popularity  of  this  question  has  declined, 
not  so  much  on  account  of  any  theoretical  preference  for  sep- 

1 Sir  Samuel  Romilly  stated,  in  1818,  that  out  of  eleven  Parliaments  of 
Geo.  III.  eight  had  lasted  six  years.  Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xxxviii. 
802.  But  later  periods  present  a different  result.  Since  the  accession  of 
•Will.  IV.,  in  1830,  — a period  of  thirty  years,  — there  have  been  no  less 
than  ten  Parliaments,  showing  an  average  duration  of  three  years  only. 


352 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


tennial  Parliaments,  as  from  a conviction  that  the  House  of 
Commons  has  become  accountable  to  the  people,  and  prompt 
in  responding  to  their  reasonable  desires. 

The  “ ballot  ” is  another  question  repeatedly  debated  in 
Vote  by  bai-  Parliament,  and  a popular  topic  at  the  hustings, 
lot*  at  public  meetings,  and  in  the  newspaper  press. 

No  sooner  had  the  reform  act  passed,  than  complaints  were 
made  that  the  elective  franchise,  so  recently  enlarged,  could 
not  be  freely  exercised.  It  was  said  that  the  landlords  in 
counties,  and  wealthy  customers  in  towns,  coerced  the  free 
will  of  the  electors,  and  forced  them  to  vote  against  their 
opinions  and  consciences.  As  a protection  against  such  prac- 
tices, the  necessity  of  secret  voting  was  contended  for.  To 
give  the  franchise,  without  the  means  of  exercising  it,  was 
declared  to  be  a mockery. 

It  was  not  for  the  first  time  that  the  influence  now  com- 
plained of,  had  been  exerted  over  electors.  It  had  formerly 
been  recognized  as  one  of  the  natural  rights  of  property.  It 
was  known  that  a few  landowners  could  nominate  the  county 
members.  They  conducted  the  freeholders  to  the  poll,  as 
naturally  as  a Highland  chieftain  led  forth  his  clan  to  the  fo- 
ray. But  now  a new  electoral  policy  had  been  commenced. 
The  people  at  large  had  been  enfranchised ; and  new  classes 
of  electors  called  into  existence.  The  political  ties  which 
had  bound  the  electors  to  the  landlords  were  loosened ; and 
the  latter,  being  deprived  of  their  absolute  ascendency,  en- 
deavored to  sustain  it  by  other  means.  The  leaseholders 
enfranchised  by  the  reform  act,  being  the  most  dependent, 
were  the  very  class  peculiarly  needing  protection.  The  bal- 
lot had  been  called  by  Cicero  the  silent  assertor  of  freedom, 
— tabella , vindex  tacita  libertatis  ; and  it  was  now  proposed, 
in  order  to  insure  freedom  of  election. 

The  ballot  has  been  sought  mainly  for  the  protection  of 
voters  from  intimidation  and  undue  influence ; but  it  has  also 
been  recommended  as  a safeguard  against  bribery.  It  has 
been  resisted  by  arguments  too  various  to  be  briefly  reviewed. 


VOTE  BY  BALLOT. 


353 


The  strongest,  perhaps,  is  that  every  political  function  being 
publicly  and  responsibly  exercised,  and  every  debate  and  vote 
in  Parliament  published  for  the  information  of  the  people, — 
electors  can  scarcely  claim  an  exemption  from  that  law  of 
publicity,  to  which  their  rulers  and  representatives  are  sub- 
ject. Why  are  they  alone,  to  be  irresponsible  ? Apart  from 
theory,  its  practical  efficacy  has  also  been  denied.  It  has 
been  said  that  if  intimidation  were  intended,  means  would  be 
taken  to  discover  the  votes  of  electors,  in  spite  of  all  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  ballot.  Nor  would  bribery  be  prevented,  as 
a candidate  would  secure  fulfilment  of  corrupt  promises,  by 
making  his  payment  for  votes,  contingent  upon  his  success  at 
the  poll. 

The  advocates  of  the  ballot  have,  perhaps,  exaggerated  the 
advantages  of  their  favored  scheme,  while  its  opponents  have 
magnified  its  evils  and  its  dangers.  It  is  a measure  upon 
which  sincere  reformers  have  been,  and  continued  to  be, 
divided.  At  times,  it  has  made  progress  in  the  number  and 
influence  of  its  supporters.  Yet  such  have  been  its  vicissi- 
tudes, that  it  is  still  difficult  for  a political  observer  to  divine, 
whether  it  will  be  suddenly  adopted,  — in  the  crisis  of  some 
party  struggle,  — or  be  laid  aside  as  a theory  for  the  dispu- 
tation of  pamphleteers,  and  debating  societies. 

In  1833,  Mr.  Grote  took  possession  of  the  question  of  the 
ballot ; and  from  that  time  until  1839,  he  continued  to  advo- 
cate the  cause,  in  a series  of  temperate  and  philosophical 
speeches,  — as  creditable  to  his  political  wisdom,  as  to  his 
learning  and  ability.  He  argued  in  the  calm  and  earnest 
spirit  of  the  theoretical  statesman ; not  with  the  fierce  tem- 
per of  the  democrat.  His  honest  labors  greatly  advanced 
the  popularity  of  the  cause,  and  improved  its  parliament- 
ary position.  In  1833  he  found  but  one  hundred  and  six 
supporters ; 1 in  1839  he  had  two  hundred  and  sixteen.2 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xvii.  608  — Ayes  106,  Hoes  211;  Ibid,  xxviii. 
369;  Ibid,  xxxiv.  781;  Ibid,  xxxvii.  7;  Ibid.  (1838),  xl.  113. 

2 Ibid,  xlviii.  442  — ■ Ayes  216,  Hoes  333. 

VOL.  i.  23 


354 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Mr.  Grote  having  retired  from  Parliament,  the  question 
was  not  allowed  to  be  forgotten.  In  1842  Mr.  Ward 
adopted  it ; 1 and  since  1848,  Mr.  Henry  Berkeley  has  made 
it  his  own.2  With  ample  stores  of  fact  and  anecdote,  and 
with  varied  resources  of  humor,  he  has  continued  to  urge 
on  the  question,  year  after  year ; but  without  increased  sup- 
port. 

In  1848  his  motion  was  carried  by  a majority  of  five.3  In 
1849,  it  was  defeated  by  a majority  of  fifty-one  : in  1852,  by 
a majority  of  one  hundred  and  two ; and  in  1860,  by  a ma- 
jority of  one  hundred  and  seven.  Such  reaction  of  opinion, 
upon  a popular  measure,  is  more  significant  of  ultimate  fail- 
ure, than  a steady  position,  without  progress  indeed,  yet 
without  reverses. 

Since  the  reform  act,  the  qualification  laws,  — which  in 
Qualification  different  forms  had  existed  for  one  hundred  and 
Aci""  fifty  years,  — have  passed  away.  It  was  osten- 

sibly to  correct  the  evils  of  bribery  at  elections,  that  prop- 
erty in  land  was  first  proposed  as  a qualification  for  a mem- 
ber of  Parliament.  The  corruption  of  boroughs  being  mainly 
due  to  the  intrusion  of  rich  commercial  men,  without  local 
connection,  the  natural  jealousy  of  the  landowners  suggested 
this  restraint  upon  their  rivals.  In  1696,  the  first  measure 
to  establish  a qualification  in  land,  was  received  with  so  much 
favor,  that  it  passed  both  Houses  ; but  the  king,  leaning 
rather  to  the  commercial  interests,  withheld  his  assent.  In 
the  following  year,  a similar  bill  was  passed  by  the  Commons, 
but  rejected  by  the  Lords ; who  had  now  begun  to  think  that 
a small  landed  qualification  would  increase  the  influence  of 
the  squires,  but  diminished  the  authority  of  the  great  nobles, 
who  filled  the  smaller  boroughs  with  members  of  their  own 
family,  and  dependents. 

The  policy  of  excluding  all  but  the  proprietors  of  land, 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  lxiv.  348. 

2 Ibid.  c.  1225. 

3 Ayes  86,  Noes  81. 


LATER  MEASURES  OF  REFORM. 


355 


from  the  right  of  sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons,  was  at 
length  adopted  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,1  and  was  main- 
tained until  1838.  In  that  year  this  exclusive  principle  was 
surrendered ; and  a new  qualification  substituted,  of  the  same 
amount,  either  in  real  or  personal  property,  or  in  both  com- 
bined.2 In  1858,  the  law  of  property  qualification  was  aban- 
doned altogether.3  In  its  original  form,  it  had  been  invidious 
and  unjust ; and,  from  its  beginning  to  its  end,  it  had  been 
systematically  evaded.  It  would  probably  not  have  survived 
so  long  the  jealousies  from  which  it  had  sprung,  had  it  not 
been  invested  with  undue  importance,  by  radical  reformers. 
But  when  the  repeal  of  this  insignificant  law  was  proclaimed 
as  one  of  the  five  points  of  the  “ Charter,”  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  more  moderate  politicians  should  have  regarded  it 
as  one  of  the  safeguards  of  the  constitution. 

Since  the  passing  of  the  reform  act,  various  minor  amend- 
ments have  been  made  in  the  electoral  laws.  The  ^ 

Proceedings 

registration  of  electors  has  been  improved  and  at  elections 
simplified,4  the  number  of  polling-places  has  been 
increased,5  and  the  polling  reduced,  in  counties  as  well  as  in 
boroughs,  a single  day.6  Even  the  Universities,  which  had 
retained  their  fifteen  days  of  polling,  were  glad  to  accept  five 
days,  in  1853. 

Promptitude  in  election  proceedings  has  further  been  in- 
sured by  the  change  of  some  ancient  customs.  The  pre- 
scriptive period  of  forty  days  between  the  summons  of  a 
new  Parliament  and  its  meeting  — enlarged  by  custom  to 
fifty  days  since  the  Union  with  Scotland,  — having  become 
an  anomaly  in  an  age  of  railways  and  telegraphs,  has  been 
reduced  to  thirty-five.7  Another  ancient  custom  has  also 

1 9 Anne,  c.  5 ; 33  Geo.  II.  c.  15. 

2 1 & 2 Viet.  c.  48. 

3 21  & 22  Viet.  c.  26. 

4 6 & 7 Viet.  c.  18. 

5 6 & 7 Will.  IV.  c.  102. 

6 5 & 6 Will.  IV.  c.  36;  16  & 17  Viet.  c.  15. 

7 By  Lord  Brougham’s  Act,  1852;  15  Viet.  c.  23. 


356 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


given  way  to  a more  simple  procedure.  By  a recent  act  the 
writs  for  an  election  are  addressed  direct  to  the  several  re- 
turning officers,  instead  of  passing  through  the  sheriff  of 
the  county.1 

A more  general  revision  of  the  representative  system,  as 
Later  meas  sett^e(^  b J reform  acts  of  1832,  has  also  been 

uresofre-  the  aim  of  several  administrations,  and  Parlia- 
ments. For  some  years,  there  had  been  a natu- 
ral reluctance  to  disturb  the  settlement  which  those  impor- 
tant measures  had  recently  effected.  The  old  Whig  party 
had  regarded  it  as  a constitutional  charter,  and  contended 
for  its  “ finality.”  But  their  advanced  Liberal  supporters, 
— after  many  discussions  in  Parliament,  and  much  agitation 
and  “ pressure  from  without,”  — at  length  prevailed  over 
the  more  cautious  policy  of  their  leaders ; and  a promise 
was  given,  in  1851,  that  the  consideration  of  the  rep- 
resentative system  should,  at  a fitting  opportunity,  be  re- 
sumed.2 

In  fulfilment  of  this  promise,  Lord  John  Bussell,  — 
Reform  Bin  twenty  years  after  the  settlement  of  1832,  — pro- 
of 1852.  posed  its  further  revision.  That  measure  had  not 
proposed  to  redistribute  the  franchise,  in  precise  correspond- 
ence with  the  population  of  different  parts  of  the  country. 
Not  founded  upon  theoretical  viewTs  of  equal  representation ; 
it  had  not  assumed  to  frame  a new  constitution  ; but  had 
provided  a remedy  for  the  worst  evils  of  a faulty  and  corrupt 
electoral  system.  It  had  rescued  the  representation  from  a 
small  oligarchy  of  peers  and  landowners  ; and  had  vested  it 
in  the  hands  of  the  middle  classes.  But  it  had  spared  many 
boroughs,  which  were  perhaps  too  small  to  exercise  their 
suffrage  independently  ; it  had  overlooked  the  claims  of  some 
considerable  places ; and  had  not  embraced  the  working 
classes  within  its  scheme  of  enfranchisement.  Lord  John 

1 16  & 17  Viet.  c.  78. 

2 Speech  of  Lord  John  Russell,  20th  Feb.  1851;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser., 
cxiv.  863.  See  also  Speech  20th  June,  1848:  Ibid.  xeix.  929. 


LATER  MEASURES  OF  REFORM. 


357 


Russell  now  sought  to  correct  these  partial  defects,  which 
time  had  disclosed  in  the  original  measure. 

He  proposed  that  every  existing  borough,  having  less  than 
five  hundred  electors,  should  be  associated  with  adjacent 
places,  in  the  right  of  returning  members ; and  that  Birken- 
head and  Burnley  should  be  enfranchised.  In  twenty  years 
there  had  been  a vast  increase  of  population,  wealth,  and 
industry,  throughout  the  country.  The  spread  of  education 
and  political  enlightenment  had  been  rapid : a more  in- 
structed generation  had  grown  up : and  a marked  improve- 
ment had  arisen,  in  the  social  condition  of  the  working 
classes.  It  was,  therefore,  thought  right  and  safe  to  lower 
the  franchise  so  far  as  to  embrace  classes  not  hitherto  in- 
cluded, and  particularly  the  most  skilled  artificers,  — men 
who  had  given  proof  of  their  intelligence  and  good  conduct, 
by  large  earnings,  and  a high  position  among  their  fellow 
workmen.  With  this  view,  it  was  proposed  to  extend  the 
borough  franchise  to  the  occupiers  of  houses  of  51.  rated 
value ; and  the  county  franchise  to  tenants-at-will  rated  at 
20 £.,  and  copyholders  and  lease-holders  rated  at  51.  It  was 
also  intended  to  create  a new  franchise,  arising  out  of  the 
annual  payment  of  40s.  in  direct  taxes  to  the  state.  Lord 
John  Russell’s  administration  soon  afterwards  resigned  ; and 
this  measure  was  withdrawn  before  the  second  reading.3 

In  1854,  Lord  John  Russell,  as  a member  of  Lord  Aber- 
deen’s government,  proposed  another  measure,  Reform  Bill 
more  comprehensive  than  the  last.  It  comprised  of  1854- 
the  disfranchisement  of  nineteen  small  boroughs,  returning 
twenty-nine  members ; the  deprivation  of  thirty-three  other 
boroughs  of  one  of  their  members;  and  the  redistribution 
of  the  vacant  seats,  sixty-six  in  number,2  amongst  the  coun- 
ties and  larger  boroughs,  the  Inns  of  Court,  and  the  Uni- 
versity of  London.  It  proposed  to  reduce  the  franchise  in 
counties  to  10 1. ; and  in  boroughs  to  the  municipal  rating 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cxix.  252,  971;  Bill,  No.  48,  of  1852. 

2 Including  the  vacant  seats  of  Sudbury  and  St.  Albans. 


358 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


franchise  of  6/.  Several  new  franchises  were  also  to  be 
added,  in  order  to  modify  the  hard  uniformity  of  the  house- 
hold franchise.  A salary  of  100£  a year  : an  income  of  10 1. 
from  dividends : the  payment  of  405.  in  direct  taxes  : a de- 
gree at  any  of  the  universities  ; and  50 1.  in  a savings’  bank, 
were  accounted  sufficient  securities  for  the  proper  exercise 
of  the  suffrage.  In  the  distribution  of  seats,  a novel  princi- 
ple was  to  be  established,  with  a view  to  insure  the  repre- 
sentation of  minorities.  Some  counties  and  other  large 
places  were  to  return  three  members  each ; but  no  elector 
would  be  entitled  to  vote  for  more  than  two  candidates  out 
of  three.  This  theory  of  representation,  — though  very 
ably  advocated  by  some  speculative  writers,1  — found  little 
favor  in  Parliament,  with  men  accustomed  to  determine 
every  disputed  question  among  themselves,  by  the  votes  of 
the  majority.  The  consideration  of  this  measure  was  post- 
poned, by  the  outbreak  of  the  war  with  Russia.2 

The  next  measure  of  parliamentary  reform  was  proposed 
The  Reform  m 1859,  by  the  government  of  Lord  Derby. 
Bin  of  1859.  Larcl  Derby,  — having  been  one  of  the  most 
eloquent,  spirited,  and  courageous  of  Lord  Grey’s  colleagues 
in  1832,  — was  now  the  leader  of  the  great  Conservative 
party,  which  had  opposed  the  first  reform  act.  But  his 
party,  deferring  to  the  judgment  of  Parliament,  had  since 
honorably  acquiesced  in  that  settlement.  Meanwhile,  the 
revision  of  that  measure  had  been  thrice  recommended  from 
the  throne  ; and  three  successive  administrations  had  been 
pledged  to  undertake  the  task.  Some  scheme  of  reform 
had  thus  become  a political  necessity.  The  measure  agreed 
upon  by  the  ministers,  and  the  principles  upon  which  it  was 
founded,  were  ably  explained  by  Mr.  Disraeli.  It  was  not 
sought  to  reconstruct  the  representation  of  the  country  solely 

1 Minorities  and  Majorities;  their  relative  Rights,  by  James  Garth  Mar- 
shall, 1853;  Edinb.  Rev.,  July  1854,  Art.  vii. ; and  more  lately  Hare  on  the 
Election  of  Representatives,  1859. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cxxx.  491;  Ibid,  cxxxi.  277. 


LATER  MEASURES  OF  REFORM. 


359 


on  the  basis  of  population  and  property : but  having  refer- 
ence to  those  material  elements,  as  well  as  to  the  representa- 
tion of  various  interests,  and  classes  of  the  community, — 
this  measure  comprehended  some  considerable  changes.  It 
was  not  proposed  wholly  to  disfranchise  any  borough  ; but 
one  member  was  to  be  taken  from  fifteen  boroughs,  having  a 
population  under  six  thousand.  Eight  of  the  vacant  seats 
were  assigned  to  the  great  county  populations  of  Yorkshire, 
South  Lancashire,  and  Middlesex ; and  seven  to  new  bor- 
oughs ; which  according  to  this  scheme,  would  complete  the 
representation  of  the  several  interests  of  the  country. 

The  two  previous  measures  of  Lord  John  Russell  had 
contemplated  a reduction  of  the  borough  franchise.  No  such 
reduction  was  now  proposed ; but  the  franchise  in  counties, 
was  assimilated  to  that  in  boroughs.  Hitherto  the  borough 
franchise  had  been  founded  upon  occupation  ; and  the  county 
franchise  generally  upon  property.  This  distinction  it  was 
now  proposed  to  abolish ; and  to  substitute  an  identity  of 
franchise,  between  the  county  and  the  town.  The  40s.  free- 
holders resident  in  towns,  would  be  transferred  from  the 
constituency  of  the  county,  to  that  of  the  town.  Several 
new  franchises  were  also  to  be  created,  similar  to  those  pro- 
posed in  1854,  but  more  comprehensive.  Men  possessed  of 
10/.  a year  arising  from  dividends : 60/.  in  a savings’  bank  ; 
or  a pension  of  20 /. : lodgers  paying  20/.  a year,  — equal 
to  8s.  a week : graduates  of  all  universities  : ministers  of 
religion  of  every  denomination : members  of  the  legal  pro- 
fession in  all  its  branches : registered  medical  practition- 
ers ; and  schoolmasters  holding  a certificate  from  the  Privy 
Council,  were  to  be  entitled  to  vote,  wherever  they  were 
resident.  And  facilities  for  exercising  the  franchise,  were 
to  be  afforded  by  means  of  voting  papers.1 

This  scheme  encountered  objections  from  two  different 
quarters.  Two  influential  members  of  the  gov- 

ti  jr  tyt  i i n/r  TT  1 Objections 

ernment,  — Mr.  W alpole  and  Mr.  Henley,  — urged  against 
alarmed  by  the  proposed  identity  of  franchise, thls  measure- 
1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  clii.  966. 


360 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


resigned  their  seats  in  the  cabinet.1  The  Opposition,  partly 
taking  up  the  same  ground,  were  unwilling  to  deprive  the 
405.  freeholders  resident  in  boroughs,  of  their  county  v<^es ; 
and  insisted  upon  the  lowering  of  the  borough  suffrage. 
The  government,  weakened  by  these  resignations,  had  now 
to  meet  a formidable  amendment,  moved  by  Lord  John 
Russell  on  the  second  reading  of  the  bill,  which  expressed 
the  views  of  the  opposition.  The  identity  of  franchise  was 
objected  to  by  Mr.  Walpole  and  Mr.  Henley,  on  account  of 
the  supposed  danger  of  drawing  one  broad  lhje  between  the 
represented,  and  the  unrepresented  classes.  Lord  John  Russell 
concurred  in  this  objection,  believing  that  such  a principle 
would  eventually  lead  to  electoral  districts.  He  also  opposed 
the  bill  on  two  other  grounds : first,  that  the  405.  freeholders, 
being  the  most  liberal  element  in  the  county  constituencies, 
ought  not  to  be  disfranchised ; and  secondly,  that  their  ad- 
mission to  the  borough  franchise  would  encourage  the  manu- 
facture of  fagot  votes,  — like  the  old  burgage  tenure,  which 
had  been  the  means  of  extending  the  influence  of  patrons. 
He  objected  to  the  continuance  of  the  10/.  household  suffrage 
in  boroughs,  on  the  ground  that  considerable  classes  of  peo- 
ple, worthy  to  be  intrusted  with  votes,  had  sprung  up  since 
that  franchise  had  been  established.  After  seven  nights’ 
debate,  the  amendment  was  carried  by  a majority  of  thirty- 
nine.2  Upon  the  issue  raised  by  this  decision,  the  govern- 
ment determined  to  dissolve  Parliament,  and  appeal  to  the 
people.3  On  the  assembling  of  a new  Parliament,  the  min- 
isters, having  failed  to  secure  a majority  at  the  elections, 
were  at  once  driven  from  office  by  an  amendment  to  the 
address,  declaring  that  they  had  not  the  confidence  of  the 
House  of  Commons.4 

And  now  the  question  of  reform  was  resumed,  once  more, 
Reform  Bill  by  Lord  John  Russell,  on  behalf  of  Lord  Pal- 
of  i860.  merston’s  administration.  On  the  1st  March, 
1860,  he  introduced  a bill,  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  clii.  1058.  8 Ibid.  1301. 

2 Ibid,  cliii.  389-1157.  * Jbid.  cliv.  98-297. 


LATER  MEASURES  OF  REFORM. 


361 


the  amendment  by  which  he  had  destroyed  the  measure  of 
the  previous  year ; but  differing  materially  from  the  bills  of 
1852  and  1854.  Like  the  bill  of  Lord  Derby’s  government, 
it  spared  all  the  smaller  boroughs.  None  were  to  be  dis- 
franchised ; but  it  deprived  twenty-five  boroughs,  with  a 
population  under  seven  thousand,  of  one  of  their  members. 
This  - disfranchisement  fell  far  short  of  that  proposed  in 
1854 ; and  it  was  avowed  that  if  any  more  places  had  been 
condemned,  their  representatives,  combining  with  the  Con- 
servative Opposition,  would  have  succeeded  in  defeating  the 
bill.  If  such  was  now  the  difficulty  of  contending  with 
these  personal  and  local  interests,  what  must  have  been  the 
difficulties  of  Mr.  Pitt  in  1784,  and  of  Lord  Grey  in  1832  ? 
One  minister  vainly  attempted  to  buy  off  his  opponents  ; 
the  other  overcame  them  by  strong  popular  support.  The 
first  expedient  was  now  wholly  out  of  the  question:  the 
latter  source  of  strength  was  wanting. 

Fifteen  of  the  vacant  seats  were  distributed  amongst  the 
counties ; and  ten  given  to  the  larger  cities,  and  some  new 
boroughs.  The  50 Z.  occupation  franchise  in  counties,  was 
reduced  to  a 10Z.  bona  fide  holding.  The  10Z.  borough  fran- 
chise was  lowered  to  6Z.,  avowedly  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
prehending many  of  the  working  classes.  It  was  calculated 
that  the  new  franchise  would  add  two  hundred  thousand 
electors  to  the  cities  and  boroughs.  None  of  the  varied 
franchises,  which  had  formed  part  of  the  bills  of  1854  and 
1859,  were  again  proposed.  Sneered  at  as  “ fancy  fran- 
chises,” and  distrusted  as  the  means  of  creating  fictitious 
votes,  they  were  now  abandoned ; and  the  more  rude,  but 
tangible  tests  of  good  citizenship  inflexibly  maintained.1 

This  bill  was  defeated,  neither  by  adverse  majorities,  nor 
by  changes  in  the  government ; but  by  delays,  lQgt  ^ 
and  the  pressure  of  other  important  measures,  delays  and  in- 
It  was  not  until  the  3d  of  May,  — after  six  ad- 
journed debates,  — that  it  was  read  a second  time,  without 
1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  clvi.  2050. 


362 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


a division.  Discussions  were  renewed  on  going  into  commit- 
tee; and  at  length,  on  the  11th  of  June,  the  bill  was  with- 
drawn.1 Bills  to  amend  the  representation  in  Scotland  and 
Ireland,  which  had  been  hopelessly  awaiting  discussion,  had 
already  been  abandoned.2 

Such  obstacles  as  these,  — however  harassing  and  incon- 
venient,— would  have  been  easily  overcome  if 

Obstacles  to  J * 

Pariiamenta-  the  government  had  been  cordially  supported  by 

ry  e orm.  ^e’r  own  parfy  jn  the  House  of  Commons,  and 
by  popular  acclamations.  But  within  the  walls  of  the 
House,  parliamentary  reform  was  received  with  coldness,  — 
if  not  with  ill-disguised  repugnance,  — even  by  its  professed 
supporters  ; and  throughout  the  country,  there  prevailed  the 
most  profound  indifference.  The  cause  which  had  once 
aroused  enthusiasm,  now  languished  from  general  neglect. 
The  press  was  silent  or  discouraging  : petitions  were  not 
forthcoming : public  meetings  were  not  assembled  : the  peo- 
ple were  unmoved.  Whence  this  indifference  ? Why  so 
marked  a change  of  popular  feeling,  in  less  than  thirty 
years?  The  settlement  of  1832  had  secured  the  great 
object  of  representation,  — good  government.  Wise  and 
beneficent  measures  had  been  passed : enlightened  public 
opinion  had  been  satisfied.  The  representation  was  theoreti- 
cally incomplete ; but  Parliament  had  been  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  interests  and  sympathies  of  the  people. 
It  had  nearly  approached  Mr.  Burke’s  standard,  according 
to  whom,  “ The  virtue,  spirit,  and  essence  of  a House  of 
Commons,  consists  in  its  being  the  express  image  of  the 
feelings  of  a nation.”  3 The  best  results  of  reform  had  been 
realized : the  country  was  prosperous  and  contented.  It 
has  ever  been  the  genius  of  the  English  people  to  love 
freedom : they  are  roused  by  injustice  : they  resent  a public 
or  private  wrong ; but  they  are  rarely  moved  by  theoretical 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  clix.  226. 

2 Ibid.  143. 

3 Burke’s  Works,  ii.  288  (Present  Discontents). 


LATER  MEASURES  OF  REFORM. 


363 


grievances.  Living  under  a settled  form  of  government, 
they  have  cared  little  for  model  constitutions;  and  united 
in  the  bonds  of  a highly  civilized  society,  they  have  never 
favored  democracy.  Again,  since  1832,  political  power  has 
been  vested  mainly  in  the  middle  classes  ; and  the  employ- 
ers of  labor,  being  masters  of  the  representation,  are  unwil- 
ling to  share  their  power  with  the  working  classes,  by  whom 
they  are  outnumbered.  Hence  the  inertness  of  existing 
constituencies.  They  enjoy  exclusive  political  privileges  ; 
and  desire  to  maintain  them. 

One  other  cause  must  not  be  omitted.  While  these 
moderate  measures  of  reform  were  being  proposed  by  suc- 
cessive governments,  other  schemes  had  been  discussed  else- 
where, — designed  to  extend  largely  the  influence  of  num- 
bers, — and  conceived  and  advocated  in  the  spirit  of  democ- 
racy. Such  proposals  increased  the  indisposition  of  moderate 
reformers,  and  of  the  classes  already  enfranchised,  to  forward 
an  extension  of  the  suffrage.  At  the  same  time,  the  advo- 
cates of  more  comprehensive  schemes  of  reform,  — while 
they  coldly  accepted  measures  falling  far  short  of  their  own,  — 
were  not  unwilling  that  they  should  be  postponed  to  some 
period  more  promising  for  the  adoption  of  their  advanced 
principles.  And  thus,  with  the  tacit  acquiescence  of  all  par- 
ties, the  question  of  parliamentary  reform  was  again  suffered 
to  sleep. 


364 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Relations  of  Parliament  to  the  Crown,  the  Law,  and  the  People.  — Abuses 
of  Privilege  in  Proceedings  against  Wilkes.  — Exclusion  of  Strangers : — 
Publication  of  Debates  restrained:  — Contest  with  the  Printers,  1771:  — 
Freedom  of  Reporting  Established : — Its  Political  Results : — Entire  Pub- 
licity of  Proceedings  in  Parliament : — Petitions : — Pledges  of  Members. 
— Conflict  of  Privilege  and  Law.  — Increased  Power,  and  Moderation  of 
the  Commons.  — Control  of  Parliament  over  the  Executive : — Impeach- 
ments : — Control  of  the  Commons  over  Taxes  and  Expenditure.  — Sketch 
of  Parliamentary  Oratory. 


We  have  traced,  in  the  last  chapter,  the  changes  which 
have  been  successively  introduced  into  the  constitution  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  — the  efforts  made  to  reduce  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Crown,  the  ministers,  and  the  aristocracy  over 
its  members,  — to  restrain  corruption,  and  encourage  an  hon- 
est and  independent  discharge  of  its  duties  to  the  public. 
We  have  now  to  regard  Parliament,  — and  mainly  the 
House  of  Commons,  — under  another  aspect : to  observe 
how  it  has  wielded  the  great  powers  intrusted  to  it, — in 
what  manner  it  has  respected  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown, 
the  authority  of  the  law,  and  other  jurisdictions,  — and  how 
far  it  has  acknowledged  its  own  responsibilities  to  the  peo- 
ple. 

Throughout  its  history,  the  House  of  Commons  has  had 
Contests  of  struggles  with  the  Crown,  the  House  of  Lords, 
on\u°eTtionsS  courts  of  law,  the  press,  and  the  people.  At 
of  privilege.  one  time  straining  its  own  powers,  at  another  re- 
sisting encroachments  upon  its  just  authority : successful  in 
asserting  its  rights,  but  failing  in  its  usurpations ; it  has  grad- 
ually assumed  its  proper  position  in  the  State,  — controlling 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES. 


365 


all  other  powers,  but  itself  controlled  and  responsible.  The 
worst  period  of  its  dependence  and  corruption,  was  also 
marked  by  the  most  flagrant  abuses  of  its  power.  And  the 
more  it  has  been  brought  under  the  control  of  public  opinion, 
— the  greater  have  been  its  moderation  and  forbearance. 

The  reign  of  George  III.  witnessed  many  remarkable 
changes  in  the  relations  of  Parliament  to  the  people,  which 
all  contributed  to  increase  its  responsibility.  Moral  causes 
also  extended  the  control  of  the  people  over  their  rulers, 
even  more  than  amendments  of  the  law,  by  which  constitu- 
tional abuses  were  corrected.  Events  occurred  early  in  this 
reign,  which  brought  to  a decisive  issue,  important  questions 
affecting  the  privileges  of  Parliament,  and  the  rights  of  the 
subject. 

The  liberty  of  the  subject  had  already  been  outraged  by 
the  imprisonment  of  Wilkes,  under  a general  war-  proceedmgs 
rant,  for  the  publication  of  the  celebrated  No.  45  ^0^eag°i“gt 
of  the  “North  Briton  ; ” 1 when  Parliament  thrust  Wilkes,  1763. 
itself  forward,  as  if  to  prove  how  privilege  could  still  be 
abused,  as  well  as  prerogative.  Being  a member  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  Wilkes  had  been  released  from  his  im- 
prisonment, by  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  on  a writ  of 
habeas  corpus , on  the  ground  of  his  privilege.2 

The  only  exceptions  to  the  privilege  of  freedom  from  ar- 
rest, which  had  ever  been  recognized  by  Parlia-  wiikes  denied 
ment,  were  “ treason,  felony,  and  breach  of  the  hls  Prmle&e- 
peace,”  “ or  refusing  to  give  surety  of  the  peace.” . The 
Court  properly  acknowledged  the  privilege,  as  defined  by 
Parliament  itself ; and  discharged  Wilkes  from  his  imprison- 
ment. He  was  afterwards  served  with  a subpoena,  on  an 
information  against  him  in  the  Court  of  King’s  Bench,  to 
which,  on  the  ground  of  privilege,  he  had  not  entered  an  ap- 
pearance. On  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  however,  in  No- 
vember, 1763,  he  lost  no  time  in  stating  that  if  his  privilege 

1 See  Chap.  X.,  on  the  Liberty  of  the  Subject. 

2 Wilson’s  Reports,  ii.  150.  St.  Tr.  xix.  539. 


366 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


should  be  affirmed,  he  was  ready  to  waive  it,  “ and  to  put 
himself  upon  a jury  of  his  countrymen.”1  Parliament, — 
which  had  ordinarily  been  too  prone  to  enlarge  its  privileges 
— was  now  the  first  to  abridge  and  surrender  them.  Eager 
to  second  the  vengeance  of  the  king,  the  Commons  com- 
menced by  voting  that  the  u North  Briton,”  No.  45,  was  66  a 
false,  scandalous,  and  malicious  libel,”  and  ordering  it  to  be 
burned  by  the  hands  of  the  common  hangman.  Then,  in 
defiance  of  their  own  previous  resolutions,  they  resolved 
“ that  privilege  of  Parliament  does  not  extend  to  the  case  of 
writing  and  publishing  seditious  libels,  nor  ought  to  be  al- 
lowed to  obstruct  the  ordinary  course  of  law,  in  the  speedy 
and  effectual  prosecution  of  so  heinous  and  dangerous  of- 
fence.” 2 

To  the  principle  of  the  latter  part  of  this  resolution  there 
can  be  little  exception  ; but  here  it  was  applied  ex  post  facto 
to  a particular  case,  and  used  to  justify  a judicial  decision, 
contrary  to  law  and  usage.  Mr.  Pitt,  while  he  denounced 
the  libel  and  the  libeller,  remonstrated  against  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  privilege.  These  resolutions  being  communicated 
to  the  Lords,  were  agreed  to  ; but  not  without  a most  able 
protest,  signed  by  seventeen  Peers,  against  the  surrender  of 
the  privilege  of  Parliament  “ to  serve  a particular  purpose, 
ex  post  facto , et  pedente  lite , in  the  Courts  below.”  3 

Such  a libel  as  that  of  Wilkes,  a few  years  later,  would 
have  attracted  little  notice  ; but  at  that  time  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  it  provoked  a legal  prosecution.  It  was,  however,  a 
libel  upon  the  king’s  ministers,  rather  than  upon  the  king  him- 
self. Upon  Parliament  it  contained  nothing  but  an  obscure 
innuendo,4  which  alone  brought  the  matter  legitimately  within 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1361. 

2 Com.  Journ.  xxix.  689;  Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1362-1378. 

8 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1371;  Ann.  Reg.  1763,  135.  Horace  Walpole  says  it 
was  drawn  up  by  Chief  Justice  Pratt. 

4 The  passage  reflecting  upon  Parliament  was  as  follows:  “As  to  the 
entire  approbation  of  Parliament  [of  the  peace]  which  is  so  vainly  boasted 
of,  the  world  knows  how  that  was  obtained.  The  large  debt  on  the  Civil 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES. 


367 


the  limits  of  privilege.  There  were,  doubtless,  many  prec- 
edents,— to  be  avoided,  rather  than  followed,  — for  pro- 
nouncing writings  to  be  seditious ; but  sedition  is  properly  an 
offence  cognizable  by  law.  So  far  as  the  libel  affected  the 
character  of  either  House,  it  was  within  the  scope  of  priv- 
ilege ; but  its  seditious  character  could  only  be  determined 
by  the  courts,  where  a prosecution  had  already  been  com- 
menced. To  condemn  the  libel  as  seditious  was,  therefore, 
to  anticipate  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunal ; and  to  order 
it  to  be  burned  by  the  hands  of  the  common  hangman,  — if 
no  great  punishment  to  the  libeller,  — yet  branded  him  as  a 
criminal  before  his  trial.  The  mob  took  part  with  Wilkes,  — 
assailed  the  Sheriffs  who  were  executing  the  orders  of  Par- 
liament ; and  having  rescued  part  of  the  obnoxious  “ North 
Briton  ” from  the  flames,  bore  it  in  triumph  to  Temple  Bar, 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  city  jurisdiction.  Here  they  made 
another  bonfire,  and  burned  a jack-boot  and  a petticoat,  the 
favorite  emblems  of  the  late  unpopular  minister  Lord  Bute, 
and  the  Princess.1  This  outrage  was  resented  by  both 
Houses  ; an  address  being  voted  for  a prosecution  of  all  per- 
sons concerned  in  it.2 

The  severities  of  Parliament  were  still  pursuing  Wilkes. 
He  had  been  ordered  by  the  Commons  to  attend  in 

* Wiikes  silt)- 

his  place,  with  a view  to  further  proceedings;  but  sconds,  and  is 
having  been  wounded  in  a duel,  — provoked  and  expelle(L 
forced  upon  him  by  Mr.  Martin,  one  of  their  own  members,3 
— his  attendance  was  necessarily  deferred.  Meanwhile,  ex- 
pecting no  mercy  either  from  the  Crown  or  from  Parlia- 
ment, — tracked  by  spies,  and  beset  with  petty  persecutions,4 
— he  prudently  withdrew  to  Paris.  Being  absent,  in  contempt 
of  the  orders  of  the  House,  the  proceedings  were  no  longer 

List,  already  above  half  a year  in  arrear,  shows  pretty  clearly  the  transac- 
tions of  the  winter.” 

1 Walpole’s  Mem.  i.  330. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1380. 

3 See  Corresp.  Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1356,  n. 

4 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  155. 


368 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


stayed ; and  evidence  having  been  taken  at  the  bar,  of  his 
being  the  author  and  publisher  of  the  “ North  Briton,”  No. 
45,  he  was  expelled  the  House.  In  expelling  a member, 
whom  they  had  adjudged  to  have  committed  the  offence  of 
writing  and  publishing  a seditious  libel,  the  Commons  acted 
within  their  powers ; but  the  vote  was  precipitate  and  vin- 
dictive. He  was  about  to  be  tried  for  his  offence ; and  they 
might  at  least  have  waited  for  his  conviction,  instead  of  pre- 
judging his  cause,  and  anticipating  his  legal  punishment. 

But  the  Lords  far  outstripped  the  other  House,  in  this  race 
Proceedings  of  persecution.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session, 
of  the  Lords.  the  Commons  were  dealing  with  the  “North 

Briton,”  Lord  Sandwich  complained  to  the  Lords  of  an  “ Es- 
say on  Woman,”  with  notes,  to  which  the  name  of  Bishop 
Warburton  was  affixed  ; and  of  another  printed  paper  called 
“ The  Veni  Creator  paraphrased.”  Of  the  “ Essay  on 
Woman,”  thirteen  copies  only  had  been  printed,  in  Wilkes’s 
private  printing-press : there  was  no  evidence  of  publication ; 
and  a proof-copy  of  the  work  had  been  obtained  through  the 
treachery  of  one  of  his  printers.  If  these  writings  were  ob- 
scene and  blasphemous,  their  author  had  exposed  himself  to 
the  law : but  the  only  pretence  for  noticing  them  in  Parlia- 
ment, was  the  absurd  use  of  the  name  of  a bishop,  — a mem- 
ber of  their  Lordships’  House.  Hence  it  became  a breach 
of  privilege  ! This  ingenious  device  was  suggested  by  the 
Chancellor,  Lord  Henley  ; and  Mr.  Grenville  obtained  the 
bishop’s  consent  to  complain  of  the  outrage,  in  his  name.1 
But  it  was  beneath  the  dignity  of  the  House  to  notice  such 
writings,  obtained  in  such  a manner  ; and  it  was  notorious 
that  the  politics  of  the  author  were  the  true  ground  of  offence, 
and  not  his  blasphemy,  or  his  irreverence  to  the  bishop.  The 
proceeding  was  the  more  ridiculous,  from  the  complaint  of 
obscenity  having  been  made  by  the  most  profligate  of  peers, 
— “ Satan  rebuking  sin.”  2 Nevertheless  the  Lords  were  not 

1 Grenville  Papers,  ii.  154. 

2 “ ‘ The  Beggar’s  Opera  ’ being  performed  at  Covent-Garden  Theatre 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES. 


369 


ashamed  to  examine  the  printers,  from  whom  the  proof-sheets 
had  been  obtained,  in  order  to  prove  that  Wilkes  was  the 
author.  They  at  once  addressed  the  king  to  order  a prosecu- 
tion of  Wilkes ; but  as  he  was,  at  this  time,  laid  up  with  his 
wounds,  proceedings  against  him  for  the  breach  of  privilege 
were  postponed.  On  the  24th  January,  when  he  had  escaped 
from  their  jurisdiction,  they  ordered  him  into  custody.1  They 
were  at  least  spared  the  opprobrium  of  further  oppression  ; 
but  their  proceedings  had  not  escaped  the  indignation  and 
ridicule  which  they  deserved. 

Leaving  Wilkes,  for  a time,  as  a popular  martyr,  — and 
passing  over  his  further  contests  with  the  government  in  the 
courts  of  law,  — we  shall  find  him,  a few  years  later,  again 
coming  into  collision  with  Parliament,  and  becoming  the  suc- 
cessful champion  of  popular  rights. 

The  discussions  on  his  case  were  scarcely  concluded,  when 
a complaint  was  made  to  the  Lords,  by  Lord  Lyt-  a D o.fc  L 
telton,  of  a book  with  the  title  of  “ Droit  Le  Hoi."  Roi  ” ordered 
It  was  the  very  opposite  of  Wilkes’s  writings,  — t0  be  burned' 
being  a high  prerogative  treatise,  founded  upon  statutes,  prec- 
edents, and  the  dicta  of  lawyers  before  the  Revolution.  It 
was  too  monstrous  to  be  defended  by  any  one  ; and,  like  the 
“ North  Briton,”  it  was  ordered  by  both  Houses  to  be  burned 
by  the  hands  of  the  common  hangman.2  There  was  no  pre- 
tence for  dealing  with  this  case  as  a breach  of  privilege ; but 
as  the  popular  cause  had  suffered  from  the  straining  of  priv- 
ilege, in  the  person  of  Wilkes,  no  one  attempted  to  save  this 
ultra-loyal  treatise  from  the  flames. 

At  the  dissolution  of  Parliament  in  1768,  Wilkes,  who  had, 


soon  after  this  event,  the  whole  audience,  when  Maclieath  says,  1 That 
Jemmy  Twitcher  should  peach  me,  I own  surprises  me,’  burst  out  into  an 
applause  of  application;  and  the  nick-name  of  Jemmy  Twitcher  stuck  by 
the  earl  so  as  almost  to  occasion  the  disuse  of  his  title.”  — Walpole's  Mem. 
i 314. 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1346. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1418;  Lords’  Journ.  xxx.  477,  &c. ; Walpole’s  Mem.  i. 
383. 


VOL.  I. 


24 


370 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


in  the  mean  time,  resided  abroad,  — an  exile  and  an  outlaw, 
Wilkes  re-  — offered  himself  as  a candidate  for  the  city  of  Lon- 

MiddUesex^  don.  He  was  defeated ; but  the  memory  of  his 
1768.  wrongs  was  revived ; and  with  no  other  claim  to 

popular  favor,  he  found  himself  the  idol  of  the  people.  He 
now  became  a candidate  for  Middlesex,  and  was  returned  by 
a large  majority.  His  triumph  was  celebrated  by  his  parti- 
sans ; who  forced  the  inhabitants  of  London  to  illuminate, 
and  join  in  their  cry  of  “ Wilkes  and  liberty,”  — marking 
every  door,  as  they  passed  along,  with  the  popular  number 
“45.” 


But  he  was  soon  to  suffer  the  penalties  of  his  past  offences. 

. . On  the  first  day  of  the  ensuing  session,  having  ap- 

His  imprison-  J & 1 or 

ment  by  the  peared  before  the  Court  of  King’s  Bench  on  his 
King’s  outlawry,  he  was  committed  on  a capias  utlagatum. 

Rescued  by  the  mob,  he  again  surrendered  him- 
self ; and  his  imprisonment  was  the  unhappy  occasion  of  riots, 
and  of  a collision  between  the  military  and  the  people.  His 
outlawry  was  soon  afterwards  reversed;  but  he  was  sen- 
tenced to  two  years’  imprisonment  for  his  libels. 

During  the  first  session  of  this  Parliament,  therefore, 
Wilkes’s  Wilkes  was  unable  to  take  his  seat ; and  as  yet 
against  Lord  n0  proceedings  were  commenced  against  him  in 
Mrnwebbtnd  House  of  Commons.  At  the  opening  of  the 
1768.  second  session,  in  November,  he  brought  himself 

into  notice  by  accusing  Lord  Mansfield,  — in  a petition  to 
the  House,  — of  having  altered  the  record  on  his  trial ; and 
Mr.  Webb,  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  of  having  bribed 
Curry,  the  printer,  with  public  money,  to  appear  as  a witness 
against  him.  His  charges  were  voted  to  be  groundless ; but 
they  served  the  purpose  of  exciting  popular  sympathy.  He 
was  brought  down  to  Westminster  to  prove  them,  attended 
by  a large  concourse  of  people ; 1 and  for  a moment  he  per- 
plexed the  House  by  submitting  whether,  being  a member, 
he  could  stand  at  the  bar,  without  having  taken  the  oaths, 
1 Walpole’s  Mem.  iii.  314. 


EXPULSION  OF  WILKES. 


371 


and  delivered  in  his  qualification.  But  he  soon  received  the 
obvious  answer  that  being  in  custody  at  the  bar,  the  acts 
affecting  members  sitting  in  the  House,  did  not  apply  to  his 
case.1 

But  a graver  matter  in  which  Wilkes  had  involved  him- 
self, was  now  to  be  considered.  He  had  published 

Libel  upon 

a letter  from  Lord  Weymouth  to  the  magistrates  Lord  Wey- 
of  Surrey,  advising  them  to  call  in  the  military  for 
the  suppression  of  riots  ; with  a prefatory  letter  of  his  own, 
in  which  he  had  applied  the  strongest  language  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  ; and  had  designated  the  late  collision  between 
the  troops  and  the  populace  in  St.  George’s  Fields,  as  a 
bloody  massacre.  Here  again,  a strange  and  irregular  pro- 
ceeding was  resorted  to.  The  letter  was  a libel  upon  a Sec- 
retary of  State,  as  an  officer  of  the  Crown  ; who,  being  also  a 
peer,  complained  of  it  as  a breach  of  privilege.  But  instead 
of  proceeding  against  the  author  in  the  House  of  Lords,  the 
paper  was  voted  an  insolent,  scandalous,  and  seditious  libel ; 
and  a conference  was  held  with  the  Commons  on  the  conduct 
of  Wilkes,  as  a member  of  their  House.2  They  immediately 
took  the  matter  up  ; and  rushing  headlong  into  a quarrel 
which  did  not  concern  them,  called  upon  Wilkes  for  his  de- 
fence. He  boldly  confessed  himself  the  author  of  the 
prefatory  letter ; and  gloried  in  having  brought  “ to  light 
that  bloody  scroll”  of  Lord  Weymouth.  The  letter  was 
voted  to  be  an  insolent,  scandalous,  and  seditious  libel.  A 
motion  was  then  made  for  the  expulsion  of  Wilkes, 

. . Kesolutions 

founded  upon  several  distinct  grounds  : first,  this  for  his  expui- 
last  seditious  libel,  which,  if  a breach  of  privilege,  S10n’ 
was  cognizable  by  the  Lords,  and  not  by  the  Commons  ; and, 
if  a seditious  libel,  was  punishable  by  law  : secondly,  the  pub- 
lication of  the  “ North  Briton,”  five  years  before,  for  which 
Wilkes  was  already  under  sentence,  and  had  suffered  expul- 

1 Com.  Journ.  Nov.  14th,  1768,  to  Feb.  1st,  1769;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  46- 
131. 

2 Lords’  Journ.  xxxii.  213. 


372 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


sion  from  a former  Parliament:  thirdly,  his  impious  and 
obscene  libels,  for  which  he  was  already  suffering  punish- 
ment, by  the  judgment  of  a criminal  court;  and,  fourthly, 
that  he  was  under  sentence  of  the  court  to  suffer  twenty-two 
months’  imprisonment. 

Such  were  the  cumulative  charges,  upon  which  it  was  now 
proposed  to  expel  him.  Nothing  can  be  more  undoubted 
than  the  right  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  expel  one  of  its 
own  members,  for  any  offence  which,  in  its  judgment,  deserves 
such  punishment,  — whether  it  be  a breach  of  privilege  or 
not.  But  here  the  exercise  of  this  right  was  unjust  and  op- 
pressive. It  was  forcibly  argued,  that  for  all  the  offences 
enumerated,  but  one,  Wilkes  had  already  suffered,  and  was 
still  suffering.  For  his  remaining  offence,  — the  libel  on  a 
Secretary  of  State,  — it  was  not  the  province  of  the  House 
to  condemn  and  punish  him  by  this  summary  process.  It 
should  be  left  to  the  courts  to  try  him,  — and,  if  found  guilty, 
to  inflict  the  punishment  prescribed  by  law.  For  his  old 
offences  he  could  scarcely  be  expelled.  During  a whole  ses- 
sion he  had  been  a member ; and  yet  they  had  not  been  held 
to  justify  his  expulsion.  Then  why  should  they  now  call  for 
such  severity  ? Clearly  on  the  ground  of  his  libel  on  Lord 
Weymouth.  The  very  enumeration  of  so  many  grounds  of 
expulsion,  implied  their  separate  weakness  and  insufficiency ; 
while  it  was  designed  to  attract  the  support  of  members,  in- 
fluenced by  different  reasons  for  their  votes.  These  argu- 
ments were  urged  by  Mr.  Burke,  Mr.  Pitt,  Mr.  Dowdeswell, 
Mr.  Beckford,  Mr.  Cornwall,  and,  above  all,  by  Mr.  George 
Grenville.1  The  mastery  speech  of  the  latter  does  great 
credit  to  his  judgment  and  foresight.  When  a minister,  he 
had  been  the  first  to  bring  the  House  of  Commons  into  col- 
lision with  Wilkes;  but  he  now  recoiled  from  the  struggle 
which  was  impending.  Having  shown  the  injustice  of  the 
proposed  punishment,  he  proceeded  to  show  its  impolicy  and 
danger.  He  predicted  that  Wilkes  would  be  reelected,  and 
1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  546 ; Cavendish  Deb.  i.  151. 


EXPULSION  OF  WILKES. 


373 


that  the  House  would  have  but  two  alternatives  — both  ob- 
jectionable; either  to  expel  him  again,  and  suspend  the 
issue  of  the  writ  for  the  entire  Parliament;  ol*  to  declare 
another  candidate,  — with  a minority  of  votes,  — to  be 
elected,  on  the  ground  of  Wilkes’s  legal  disqualification.  In 
both  cases  the  law  would  be  violated,  and  the  rights  of  the 
electors  invaded.  And  in  warning  them  of  the  dangerous 
contest  they  were  about  to  commence,  he  predicted  that  the 
power  and  popularity  of  the  demagogue  would  suddenly  be 
reduced,  if  he  were  relieved  from  his  martyrdom,  and  ad- 
mitted to  the  legislature,  where  his  true  character  would  be 
discovered. 

But  all  these  arguments  and  cautions,  were  proffered  in 
vain.  The  House,  — making  common  cause  with  the  court, 
— had  resolved  to  scourge  the  insolent  libeller  who  had  in- 
truded himself  into  their  councils ; and,  regardless  of  future 
consequences,  they  voted  his  expulsion  by  a large  majority. 
According  to  Burke,  “ the  point  to  be  gained  by  the  cabal 
was  this  : that  a precedent  should  be  established,  tending  to 
show  that  the  favor  of  the  people  was  not  so  sure  a road  as 
the  favor  of  the  court,  even  to  popular  honors  and  popular 
trusts.”  “ Popularity  was  to  be  rendered,  if  not  directly 
penal,  at  least  highly  dangerous.”  1 This  view,  however,  is 
too  deep  and  philosophical,  to  have  been  the  true  one.  The 
court  party,  having  been  defied  and  insulted  by  a political 
opponent,  were  determined  to  crush  him ; and  scarcely 
stopped  to  consider  whether  the  laws  were  outraged  or*  not. 

Up  to  this  time,  whatever  may  have  been  the  injustice  and 
impolicy  of  their  proceedings,  the  Commons  had  not  exceeded 
their  legal  powers.  The  grounds  on  which  they  had  expelled 
a member  may  have  been  insufficient ; but  of  their  sufficiency, 
they  alone  were  competent  to  judge. 

They  were  now,  however,  about  to  commit  unwarrantable 
excesses  of  jurisdiction,  and  to  violate  the  clearest  wnkes  re- 
principles of  law.  As  Mr.  Grenville  had  pre-  elected‘ 

1 Present  Discontents;  Works,  ii.  294. 


374 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


dieted,  Wilkes  was  immediately  reelected  without  opposi- 
His  election  tion.1  The  next  day,  on  the  motion  of  Lord 
declared  void.  Strange,  the  House  resolved  that  Mr.  Wilkes 
“ having  been,  in  this  session  of  Parliament,  expelled  the 
House,  was  and  is  incapable  of  being  elected  a member,  to 
serve  in  this  present  Parliament.”  The  election  was  accord- 
ingly declared  void,  and  a new  writ  issued.2  There  were 
precedents  for  this  course ; 3 for  this  was  not  the  first  time 
the  Commons  had  exceeded  their  jurisdiction ; but  it  could 
not  be  defended  upon  sound  principles  of  law.  If  by  a vote 
of  the  House,  a disability,  unknown  to  the  law,  could  be 
created,  — any  man  who  became  obnoxious  might,  on  some 
ground  or  other,  be  declared  incapable.  Incapacity  would 
then  be  declared,  — not  by  the  law  of  the  land,  but  by  the 
arbitrary  will  of  the  House  of  Commons.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  House  felt  strongly  that  their  power  of  expulsion 
was  almost  futile,  if  their  judgment  could  be  immediately  set 
aside  by  the  electors ; or,  as  it  was  put  by  General  Conway, 
“ if  a gentleman  who  returns  himself  for  any  particular 
borough,  were  to  stand  up  and  say  that  he  would,  in  op- 
position to  the  powers  of  the  House,  insist  upon  being  a 
a member  of  Parliament.”  4 

Again,  with  still  increasing  popularity,  Wilkes  was  re- 
elected without  opposition ; and  again  a new  writ 
was  issued.  In  order  to  prevent  a repetition  of 
these  fruitless  proceedings,  an  alternative,  — al- 
ready pointed  out  by  Mr.  Grenville,  — was  now  adopted. 

Colonel  Luttrell,  a member,  vacated  his  seat,  and 

Wilkes  was,  of 
He  received 

one  thousand  one  hundred  and  forty-three  votes ; Colonel 
Luttrell  only  two  hundred  and  ninety-six.  There  were  also 


Again  re- 
elected, and 
election  de- 
clared void. 


Opposed  by 

Colonel  Lut-  offered  himself  as  a candidate. 

course,  returned  by  a large  majority. 


1 So  stated  by  a member  who  was  present;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  580. 

2 Feb.  17th,  1769;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  345. 

8 See  May’s  Law  of  Parliament  (4th  Ed.),  59;  Townsend’s  Mem.  ii.  100. 

4 Cavendish  Deb.  i.  352. 


EXPULSION  OF  WILKES. 


375 


two  other  candidates,  Mr.  Sergeant  Whitaker  and  Mr.  Koache, 
the  former  of  whom  had  five  votes,  and  the  latter  none.  The 
Commons  immediately  pronounced  the  return  of  Again  retnm- 
Wilkes  to  be  null  and  void ; and,  having  called  for  onei  Luttreii 
the  poll-books,  proceeded  to  vote,  — though  not seated‘ 
without  a strenuous  opposition,  — that  Henry  Lawes  Lut- 
treii ought  to  have  been  returned.1  To  declare  a candidate, 
supported  by  so  small  a number  of  votes,  the  legal  represen- 
tative of  Middlesex,  was  a startling  step  in  the  progress  of 
this  painful  contest;  but  the  ultimate  seating  of  another 
candidate,  notwithstanding  Wilkes’s  majorities,  was  the  in- 
evitable result  of  the  decision  which  affirmed  his  incapacity. 

Leave  was  given  to  petition  the  House  against  Colonel 
Luttreii’ s election,  within  fourteen  days.  Of  this  permission 
the  electors  soon  availed  themselves ; and,  on  the  8th  May, 
they  were  heard  by  counsel,  at  the  bar  of  the  House.  Their 
arguments  were  chiefly  founded  upon  the  original  illegality 
of  the  vote,  by  which  Wilkes’s  incapacity  had  been  declared ; 
and  were  ably  supported  in  debate,  particularly  by  Mr.  Wed- 
derburn,  Mr.  Burke,  and  Mr.  George  Grenville ; 2 but  the 
election  of  Colonel  Luttreii  was  confirmed  by  a majority  of 
sixty-nine. 

Wilkes  was  now  effectually  excluded  from  Parliament; 
but  his  popularity  had  been  increased,  while  the  popuiarity  0f 
House,  and  all  concerned  in  his  oppression,  were  Wllkes* 
the  objects  of  popular  indignation.  As  some  compensation 
for  his  exclusion  from  the  House  of  Commons,  Wilkes  was 
elected  an  alderman  of  the  city  of  London.  A liberal  sub- 
scription was  also  raised,  for  the  payment  of  his  debts. 

So  dangerous  a precedent  was  not  suffered  to  rest  unques- 
tioned. Not  only  the  partisans  of  Wilkes,  but  the  Efforts  to  re- 
statesmen  and  lawyers  opposed  to  the  government,  Ceding?  pr°’ 
continued  to  protest  against  it,  until  it  was  con-  asainst  him- 
demned. 

1 April  14th,  1769;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  360-386.  Ayes  197,  Noes  143  — 
Majority  54. 

2 Cavendish  Deb.  i.  406. 


376 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


On  the  9th  January,  1770,  Lord  Chatham,  — reappearing 
in  the  House  of  Lords  after  his  long  prostration, 

ham,  Jan.,  — moved  an  amendment  to  the  address,  denounc- 
1770 

ing  the  late  proceedings  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, as  “refusing,  by  a resolution  of  one  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature, to  the  subject  his  common  right,  and  depriving  the 
electors  of  Middlesex  of  their  free  choice  of  a representa- 
tive.” 1 Lord  Camden,  the  Chancellor,  now  astonished  the 
Lords  by  a statement  “ that  for  some  time  he  had  beheld  with 
silent  indignation,  the  arbitrary  measures  which  were  pursu- 
ing by  the  ministry ; ” and,  “ that  as  to  the  incapacitating 
vote,  he  considered  it  as  a direct  attack  upon  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  the  constitution.”  2 Lord  Mansfield,  while  he  said 
that  his  opinion  upon  the  legality  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
House  of  Commons  was  “ locked  up  in  his  own  breast,  and 
should  die  with  him,”  (though  for  what  reason  it  is  not  easy 
to  explain,)  argued  that  in  matters  of  election  the  Commons 
had  a complete  jurisdiction,  without  appeal ; that  their  de- 
cisions could  only  be  reversed  by  themselves,  or  by  Act  of 
Parliament ; and  that  except  in  discussing  a bill,  the  Lords 
could  not  inquire  into  the  question,  without  violating  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  other  House. 

Lord  Chatham  replied  in  his  finest  manner.  Lord  Mans- 
field’s remarks  on  the  invasion  of  the  privileges  of  the  other 
House,  called  forth  this  comment : “ What  is  this  mysterious 
power,  — undefined  by  law,  unknown  to  the  subject,  which 
we  must  not  approach  without  awe,  nor  speak  of  without 
reverence,  — which  no  man  may  question,  and  to  which  all 
men  must  submit  ? My  Lords,  I thought  the  slavish  doc- 
trine of  passive  obedience  had  long  since  been  exploded ; 
and  when  our  kings  were  obliged  to  confess  that  their  title 
to  the  crown,  and  the  rule  of  their  government,  had  no 
other  foundation  than  the  known  laws  of  the  land,  I never 
expected  to  hear  a divine  right,  or  a divine  infallibility  at- 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  653. 

2 This  speech  is  not  reported  in  the  Pari.  Hist.,  but  is  printed  from  the 
Gentleman’s  Mag.  of  Jan.,  1770,  in  a note;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  644,  n. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES  CONDEMNED.  377 


tributed  to  any  other  branch  of  the  legislature/’  He  then 
proceeded  to  affirm  that  the  Commons  “ have  betrayed  their 
constituents,  and  violated  the  constitution.  Under  pretence 
of  declaring  the  law,  they  have  made  a law,  and  united  in 
the  same  persons,  the  office  of  legislator  and  of  judge.”  1 
His  amendment  was  negatived ; but  the  stirring  eloquence 
and  constitutional  reasoning  of  so  eminent  a statesman, 
added  weight  to  Wilkes’s  cause. 

In  the  Commons  also,  very  strong  opinions  were  expressed 
on  the  injustice  of  Wilkes’s  exclusion.  Sir  George  „ 

. 0 . . ° Proceedings 

Savile  especially  distinguished  himself  by  the  m the  Com- 

warmth  of  his  language  ; and  accused  the  House 
of  having  betrayed  the  rights  of  its  constituents.  Being 
threatened  with  the  Tower,  he  twice  repeated  his  opinion  ; 
and,  — - declining  the  friendly  intervention  of  Colonel  Con- 
way and  Lord  North,  who  attributed  his  language  to  the 
heat  of  debate,  — he  assured  the  House  that  if  he  was  in 
a rage,  “ he  had  been  so  ever  since  the  fatal  vote  was  passed, 
and  should  be  so  till  it  is  rescinded.” 2 Mr.  Sergeant 
Glynn  thought  “ his  declaration  not  only  innocent,  but  laud- 
able.” A formidable  opposition  showed  itself  throughout 
the  debate;  and  while  in  the  Lords,  the  Chancellor  had 
pronounced  his  opinion  against  the  incapacitating  vote,  — in 
the  Commons,  the  Solicitor- General,  Mr.  Dunning,  also 
spoke  and  voted  against  the  government.  The  question 
had  thus  assumed  a formidable  aspect,  and  led  to  changes, 
which  speedily  ended  in  the  breaking  up  of  the  Duke  of 
Grafton’s  administration. 

On  the  25th  January,  1770,  Mr.  Dowdeswell  moved  a 
resolution  in  a committee  of  the  whole  House, 

. Mr.  Dowdes- 

“That  this  House  in  its  judicature  in  matters  of  well’s  resoiu- 
election,  is  bound  to  judge  according  to  the  law 
of  the  land,  and  the  known  and  established  law  and  custom 
of  Parliament,  which  is  part  thereof.”  This  premise  could 
neither  be  denied  nor  assented  to  by  the  government  without 
1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  647.  2 Ibid.  699. 


378 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


embarrassment ; but  Lord  North  adroitly  followed  it  out  by 
a conclusion  “ that  the  judgment  of  this  House  was  agree- 
able to  the  said  law  of  the  land,  and  fully  authorized  by 
the  law  and  custom  of  Parliament.”  1 On  the  31st  Janu- 
ary, Mr.  Dowdeswell  repeated  his  attack  in  another  form, 
but  with  no  better  success.2 

The  matter  was  now  again  taken  up  in  the  House  of 
Lord  Rock-  Lords.  On  the  2d  February,  in  committee  on 
tiou^8  m°"  fke  sta^e  °f  Ike  nation,  Lord  Rockingham  moved 
Feb.,  1770.  a resolution  similar  to  that  of  Mr.  Dowdeswell.3 
Though  unsuccessful,  it  called  forth  another  powerful  speech 
from  Lord  Chatham,  and  a protest  signed  by  forty-two  peers. 
The  rejection  of  this  motion  was  immediately  followed,  — 
without  notice,  and  after  twelve  o’clock  at  night,  — by  a 
motion  of  Lord  Marchmont,  that  to  impeach  a judgment 
of  the  House  of  Commons  would  be  a breach  of  the  consti- 
tutional right  of  that  House.  Lord  Camden,  being  accused 
by  Lord  Sandwich  of  duplicity,  in  having  concealed  his 
opinion  as  to  the  illegality  of  the  incapacitating  vote,  while 
a member  of  the  cabinet,  asserted  that  he  had  frequently 
declared  it  to  be  both  illegal  and  imprudent.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Duke  of  Grafton  and  Lord  Weymouth  complained 
that  he  had  always  withdrawn  from  the  Council  Board  to 
avoid  giving  his  opinion,  — a circumstance  explained  by 
Lord  Camden  on  the  ground  that  as  his  advice  had  been 
already  rejected,  and  the  cabinet  had  resolved  upon  its  meas- 
ures, he  declined  giving  any  further  opinion.4  In  either 
case,  it  seems,  there  could  have  been  no  doubt  of  his  disap- 
proval of  the  course  adopted  by  ministers. 

The  next  effort  made  in  Parliament,  in  reference  to 
Wilkes’s  case,  was  a motion  by  Mr.  Herbert  for  a bill  to 
regulate  the  consequences  of  the  expulsion  of  members. 
But  as  this  bill  did  not  reverse,  or  directly  condemn  the 
proceedings  in  the  case  of  Wilkes,  it  was  not  very  warmly 


1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  797. 

2 Ibid.  800. 


3 Ibid.  814. 

4 Ibid.  823. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES  CONDEMNED.  379 


supported  by  the  Opposition;  and  numerous  amendments 
having  been  made  by  the  supporters  of  government,  by 
which  its  character  became  wholly  changed,  the  bill  was 
withdrawn.1 

The  scene  of  this  protracted  contest  was  now  varied  for 
a time.  Appeals  to  Parliament  had  been  made 

v r r The  city  ad- 

in  vain  ; and  the  city  of  London  resolved  to  carry  dress  to  the 

up  their  complaints  to  the  throne.  A petition  had  ’ 1 
been  presented  to  the  king  in  the  previous  year,  to  which  no 
answer  had  been  returned.  And  now  the  Lord  Mayor, 
aldermen,  and  livery,  in  Common  Hall  assembled,  agreed 
to  an  “ address,  remonstrance,  and  petition  ” to  the  king, 
which,  whatever  the  force  of  its  statements,  was  conceived 
in  a tone  of  unexampled  boldness.  “ The  majority  of  the 
House  of  Commons,”  they  said,  “ have  deprived  your  peo- 
ple of  their  dearest  rights.  They  have  done  a deed  more 
ruinous  in  its  consequences  than  the  levying  of  ship-money 
by  Charles  I.,  or  the  dispensing  power  assumed  by  James 
II.”  They  concluded  by  praying  the  king  “ to  restore  the 
constitutional  government  and  quiet  of  his  people,  by  dis- 
solving the  Parliament  and  removing  his  evil  ministers  for- 
ever from  his  councils.”  2 

In  his  answer,  his  Majesty  expressed  his  concern  that 
any  of  his  subjects  “ should  have  been  so  far  misled  as  to 
offer  him  an  address  and  remonstrance,  the  contents  of 
which  he  could  not  but  consider  as  disrespectful  to  himself, 
injurious  to  Parliament,  and  irreconcilable  to  the  principles 
of  the  constitution.”  3 

The  Commons,  whose  acts  had  been  assailed  by  the  re- 
monstrance, were  prompt  in  rebuking  the  city,  joint  address 
and  pressing  forward  in  support  of  the  king,  n^ses  to  the 
They  declared  the  conduct  of  the  city  u highly  king- 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  830-833 ; Cavendish  Deb.  i.  435. 

2 The  address  is  printed  at  length;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  576. 

3 Having  returned  this  answer,  the  king  is  said  to  have  turned  round  to 
his  courtiers,  and  burst  out  laughing.  — Public  Advertiser , cited  in  Lord 
Rockingham’s  Mem.  ii.  174. 


380 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


un warrantable,' ” and  tending  66  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
kingdom ; ” and  having  obtained  the  concurrence  of  the 
Lords,  a joint  address  of  both  Houses,  conveying  this  opin- 
ion, was  presented  to  the  king.  In  their  zeal,  they  had 
overlooked  the  unseemliness  of  lowering  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  to  a level  with  the  corporation  of  the  city  of 
London,  and  of  wrangling  with  that  body,  at  the  foot  of  the 
throne.  The  city  was  ready  with  a rejoinder,  in  the  form 
of  a further  address  and  remonstrance  to  the  king. 

Lord  Chatham,  meanwhile,  and  many  of  the  leaders  of 
Lord  Chat  Wing  party,  saw,  in  the  king’s  answer,  con- 

ham  con-  sequences  dangerous  to  the  right  of  petitioning, 
king’s  an-  Writing  to  Lord  Rockingham,  April  29th,  Lord 
Chatham  said:  “A  more  unconstitutional  piece 
never  came  from  the  throne,  nor  any  more  dangerous,  if  left 
unnoticed.” 1 And  on  the  4th  of  May,  not  deterred  by  the 
joint  address  already  agreed  to  by  both  Houses,  he  moved  a 
resolution  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  the  advice  inducing 
his  Majesty  to  give  that  answer  “ is  of  the  most  dangerous 
tendency,”  as  “ the  exercise  of  the  clearest  rights  of  the  sub- 
ject to  petition  the  king  for  redress  of  grievances,  had  been 
checked  by  reprimand.”  He  maintained  the  constitutional 
right  of  the  subject  to  petition  for  redress  of  all  grievances ; 
and  the  justice  of  the  complaints  which  the  city  of  London 
had  laid  at  the  foot  of  the  throne.  Rut  the  motion  provoked 
little  discussion,  and  was  rejected.2  And  again,  on  the  14th 
May,  Lord  Chatham  moved  an  address  for  a dissolution  of 
Parliament.  But  all  strangers,  except  peers’  sons  and  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Commons,  having  been  excluded  from 
this  debate,  no  record  of  it  has  been  preserved.  The  ques- 
tion was  called  for  at  nine  o’clock,  and  negatived.3 

On  the  1st  of  May,  Lord  Chatham  presented  a bill  for  re- 
versing the  several  adjudications  of  the  House  of  Commons, 

1 Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  177 ; Woodfall’s  Junius,  ii.  104. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  966. 

3 Ibid.  979. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES  CONDEMNED.  381 


in  Wilkes’s  case.  The  bill,  after  reciting  all  these  resolutions, 
declared  them  to  be  “ arbitrary  and  illegal ; ” and  Lord  Chat. 
they  were  “ reversed,  annulled,  and  made  void.”  reversebthet0 
Lord  Camden  said,  “ The  judgment  passed  upon  {£egcim- of 
the  Middlesex  election,  has  given  the  consti-  mons,  1770. 
tution  a more  dangerous  wound  than  any  which  were  given 
during  the  twelve  years’  absence  of  Parliament  in  the  reign 
of  Charles  I. ; ” and  he  trusted  that  its  reversal  would  be  de- 
manded, session  after  session,  until  the  people  had  obtained 
redress.  Lord  Mansfield  deprecated  any  interference  with 
the  privileges  of  the  Commons,  and  the  bill  was  rejected  by 
a large  majority.1 

The  next  session  witnessed  a renewal  of  discussions  upon 
this  popular  question.  On  the  5th  December,  Lord  chat- 
Lord  Chatham  moved  another  resolution ; which 
met  the  same  fate  as  his  previous  motions  on  the  Dec>  1770  • 
subject.2  On  the  30th  April,  the  Duke  of  Richmond  moved 
to  expunge  from  the  journals  of  the  House  the  nUke  of  Rich- 
resolution  of  the  2d  of  February,  1770,  in  which  “onfAprii" 
they  had  deprecated  any  interference  with  the 177L 
jurisdiction  of  the  Commons,  as  unconstitutional.  He  con- 
tended that  if  such  a resolution  were  suffered  to  remain  on 
record,  the  Commons  might  alter  the  whole  law  of  elections, 
and  change  the  franchise  by  an  arbitrary  declaration ; and 
yet  the  Lords  would  be  precluded  from  remonstrance.  Lord 
Chatham  repeated  his  opinion,  that  the  Commons  “ had  dar- 
ingly violated  the  laws  of  the  land ; ” and  declared  that  it 
became  not  the  Lords  to  remain  “ tame  spectators  of  such  a 
deed,  if  they  would  not  be  deemed  accessory  to  their  guilt, 
and  branded  with  treason  to  their  country.”  The  ministers 
made  no  reply,  and  the  question  was  negatived.3 

A few  days  afterwards,  Lord  Chatham  moved  an  address 
for  a dissolution,  on  the  ground  of  the  violations  of  law  by 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  955;  Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  121;  Rockingham  Mem.  ii. 
177. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  1302.  It  was  superseded  by  adjournment. 

3 Ibid.  xvii.  214. 


382 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


the  Commons  in  the  Middlesex  election,  and  the  contest 
which  had  lately  arisen  between  them  and  the  city  magis- 
tracy ; 1 but  found  no  more  than  twenty-three  supporters.2 

The  concluding  incidents  of  the  Middlesex  election  may 
now  be  briefly  told,  before  we  advert  to  a still  more  impor- 
tant conflict  which  was  raging  at  this  time,  with  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Commons  ; and  the  new  embarrassments  which 
Wilkes  had  raised. 

In  the  next  session,  Sir  George  Savile,  in  order  to  renew 
the  annual  protest  against  the  Middlesex  election, 

Sir  George  ° 

Saviie’s  mo-  moved  for  a bill  to  secure  the  rights  ot  electors, 
’ ‘ ’ with  respect  to  the  eligibility  of  persons  to  serve 
in  Parliament.  Lord  North  here  declared,  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Commons  had  “ been  highly  consistent  with  jus- 
tice, and  the  law  of  the  land ; and  that  to  his  dying  day  he 
should  continue  to  approve  of  them.”  The  motion  was  de- 
feated by  a majority  of  forty-six.3 

In  1773,  Mr.  Wilkes  brought  his  case  before  the  House, 

Mr  Wilkes  *n  s^aPe  a friv°l°us  complaint  against  the 
complains  of  Deputy-Clerk  of  the  Crown,  who  had  refused  to 
cierk^the  give  him  a certificate,  as  one  of  the  members  for 
Middlesex.  Sir  G.  Savile,  also,  renewed  his  mo- 
tion for  a bill  to  secure  the  rights  of  electors,  and  found  one 
hundred  and  fifty  supporters.4  Mr.  Burke  took  this  occasion 
to  predict  that,  “ there  would  come  a time  when  those  now 
in  office  would  be  reduced  to  their  penitentials,  for  having 
turned  a deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  the  people.”  In  1774,  Sir 
G.  Savile  renewed  his  motion  for  a bill  to  secure  the  rights 
of  electors,  with  the  usual  result.6 

The  Parliament,  which  had  been  in  continual  conflict  with 
Wilkes  elected  Wilkes  for  five  years,  was  now  dissolved ; and 
Parliament,  Wilkes  was  again  returned  for  Middlesex.  Ac- 
1774.  cording  to  the  resolution  of  the  Commons,  his  in- 

1 See  infra,  p.  389.  4 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  838. 

2 May  1st,  1771;  Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  224.  5 Ibid.  1057. 

8 Feb.  27th,  1772;  Ibid.  318. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  WILKES  CONDEMNED.  383 

capacity  had  been  limited  to  the  late  Parliament ; and  he 
now  took  his  seat  without  further  molestation.  Before  the 
meeting  of  Parliament,  Wilkes  had  also  attained  the  highest 
civic  honor,  — being  elected  Lord  Mayor  of  London. 

He  did  not  fail  to  take  advantage  of  his  new  privileges ; 
and  on  the  22d  February,  1775,  he  moved  that 

i i i . . Moves  to  ex- 

the  resolution  which  had  declared  his  incapacity,  punge  the 

. t p ,,  , ,,  . . p resolution. 

be  expunged  from  the  journals,  “ as  subversive  of 
the  rights  of  the  whole  body  of  electors.”  He  said,  “the 
people  had  made  his  cause  their  own,  for  they  saw  the 
powers  of  government  exerted  against  the  constitution,  which 
was  wounded  through  his  sides.”  He  recapitulated  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  case ; referred  very  cleverly  to  the  various 
authorities  and  precedents  ; and  showed  the  dangerous  con- 
sequences of  allowing  a resolution  to  remain  upon  the  jour- 
nals, which  was  a violation  of  the  law.  He  was  ably  sup- 
ported by  Mr.  Sergeant  Glynn,  Sir  George  Savile,  and  Mr. 
Wedderburn ; and  in  the  division  secured  one  hundred  and 
spventy-one  votes.1 

He  renewed  this  motion  in  1776, 2 in  1777, 3 in  1779, 4 and 
in  1781. 5 At  length,  on  the  3d  of  May,  1782,  he  Regokltion 
proposed  it  for  the  last  time,  and  with  signal  sue-  expunged, 
cess.  The  Rockingham  ministry  was  in  office, 
and  had  resolved  to  condemn  the  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
mons, which  its  leading  members  had  always  disapproved. 
Mr.  Fox  was  now  the  only  statesman  of  any  eminence,  by 
whom  Wilkes’s  motion  was  opposed.  He  had  always  main- 
tained that  the  Commons  had  not  exceeded  their  powers ; 
and  he  still  consistently  supported  that  opinion,  in  opposition 
to  the  premier  and  the  leaders  of  his  party.  Wilkes’s  motion 
was  now  carried  by  a triumphant  majority  of  sixty-eight ; 
and  by  order  of  the  House,  all  the  declarations,  orders,  and 
resolutions,  respecting  the  Middlesex  election,  were  expunged 

1 171  to  239;  Pari.  Hist,  xviii.  358. 

2 Ibid . 1336. 

8 Ibid.  xix.  193. 


4 Ibid.  xx.  144. 

5 Ibid.  xxii.  99. 


384 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


from  the  journals,  as  being  subversive  of  the  rights  of  the 
whole  body  of  electors  in  this  kingdom.1 

Thus  at  length,  this  weary  contest  was  brought  to  a close. 

, ^ A former  House  of  Commons,  too  eager  in  its 

Abuses  of  . ° 

privilege;  vengeance,  had  exceeded  its  powers;  and  now 

their  danger.  ° ^ . . 

a succeeding  Parliament  reversed  its  judgment 
This  decision  of  1782,  stands  out  as  a warning  to  both 
Houses,  to  act  within  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction,  and  in 
strict  conformity  with  the  laws.  An  abuse  of  privilege  is 
even  more  dangerous  than  an  abuse  of  prerogative.  In  the 
one  case,  the  wrong  is  done  by  an  irresponsible  body : in  the 
other  the  ministers  who  advised  it,  are  open  to  censure  and 
punishment.  The  judgment  of  offences  especially,  should 
be  guided  by  the  severest  principles  of  law.  Mr.  Burke  ap- 
plied to  the  judicature  of  privilege,  in  such  cases,  Lord  Ba- 
con’s description  of  the  Star  Chamber,  — “a  court  of  crim- 
inal equity : ” saying,  “ a large  and  liberal  construction  in 
ascertaining  offences,  and  a discretionary  power  in  punishing 
them,  is  the  idea  of  criminal  equity,  which  is  in  truth  a 
monster  in  jurisprudence.” 2 The  vindictive  exercise  of 
privilege,  — once  as  frequent  as  it  was  lawless,  — was  now 
discredited  and  condemned. 

But  before  Wilkes  had  obtained  this  crowning  triumph 
, . „ over  the  Commons,  he  had  contrived  to  raise  an- 

Exclusion  of 

strangers  other  storm  against  their  privileges,  which  pro- 

from  debates.  ° n . . . 

duced  consequences  oi  greater  constitutional  im- 
portance ; and  again  this  bold  and  artful  demagogue  became 
the  instrument,  by  which  popular  liberties  were  extended. 

Among  the  privileges  of  Parliament,  none  had  been  more 
frequently  exercised  by  both  Houses,  than  the  exclusion  of 
strangers  from  their  deliberations ; and  restraints  upon  the 
publication  of  debates.  The  first  of  these  privileges  is  very 
ancient ; and  probably  originated  in  convenience,  rather  than 
in  any  theory  of  secrecy  in  their  proceedings.  The  mem- 

1 Ayes  15;  Noes  47;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1407. 

2 Present  Discontents,  Works,  ii.  297. 


EXCLUSION  OF  STRANGERS. 


385 


bers  met  not  so  much  for  debate,  as  for  deliberation  : they 
were  summoned  for  some  particular  business,  which  was  soon 
disposed  of ; and  as  none  but  those  summoned,  were  expected 
to  attend,  the  chambers  in  which  they  assembled,  were  sim- 
ply adapted  for  their  own  accommodation.  Hence  the  occa- 
sional intrusion  of  a stranger  was  an  inconvenience,  and  a 
disturbance  to  the  House.  He  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
members, — standing  with  them  in  the  gangway, — or  taking 
his  place,  where  none  but  members  had  the  privilege  of  sit- 
ting. Such  intrusion  resembled  that  of  a man  who,  in  the 
present  day,  should  force  his  way  into  Brookes’s  or  the  Carl- 
ton, and  mingle  with  the  members  of  the  club.  Some 
strangers  even  entered  the  House,  pretending  to  be  mem- 
bers.1 Precautions  were  necessary  to  prevent  confusion  ; 
for  even  so  late  as  1771  a stranger  was  counted  in  a di- 
vision.2 Hence,  from  early  times,  the  intrusion  of  a stranger 
was  generally  punished  by  his  immediate  commitment,  or 
reprimand.3  The  custom  afterwards  served  as  an  auxiliary 
to  the  most  valuable  of  all  privileges,  — the  freedom  of 
speech.  What  a member  said  in  his  place,  might  indeed  be 
reported  to  the  king,  or  given  in  evidence  against  him  in  the 
Court  of  King’s  Bench,  or  the  Stannary  Court,  by  another 
member  of  the  House ; but  strangers  might  be  there,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  noting  his  words,  for  future  condemnation. 
So  long,  therefore,  as  the  Commons  were  obliged  to  protect 
themselves  against  the  rough  hand  of  prerogative,  they 
strictly  enforced  the  exclusion  of  strangers. 

Long  after  that  danger  had  passed  away,  the  privilege 
was  maintained  as  a matter  of  custom,  rather  than  Relaxation  of 
of  policy.  At  length  apprehensions  arose  from  the  priYllege- 
another  quarter  ; and  the  privilege  was  asserted  as  a protec- 
tion to  Parliament,  against  the  clamors  and  intimidation  of 
the  people.  But  the  enforcement  of  this  privilege  was  grad- 

1 Mr.  Perne,  March  5th,  1557 ; Mr.  Bukeley,  May  14th,  1614. 

2 Com.  Journ.  xxxiii.  212. 

3 Ibid . i.  105,  118,  417,  484;  Ibid.  ii.  74,  433. 

vol.  i.  25 


386 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ually  relaxed.  When  the  debates  in  Parliament  began  to  ex- 
cite the  interest  of  the  public,  and  to  attract  an  eager  audi- 
ence, the  presence  of  strangers  was  connived  at.  They  could 
be  dismissed  in  a moment,  at  the  instance  of  any  member ; 
but  the  Speaker  was  not  often  called  upon  to  enforce  the 
orders  of  the  House. 

Towards  the  middle  of  last  century,  attendance  upon  the 
debates  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  had  become  a fash- 
ionable amusement.  On  the  9th  of  December,  1761,  the 
interest  excited  by  a debate  in  the  Commons,  on  the  re- 
newal of  the  Prussian  Treaties  was  so  great,  that  Lord 
Royston,  writing  to  Lord  Hardwicke,  said : “ The  House 
was  hot  and  crowded,  — as  full  of  ladies  as  the  House  of 
Lords  when  the  King  goes  to  make  a speech.  The  mem- 
bers were  standing  above  half  way  up  the  floor.”  It  be- 
came necessary  on  this  occasion,  to  enforce  the  standing 
order  for  the  exclusion  of  strangers.1  And  in  this  way,  for 
several  years  the  presence  of  strangers,  with  rare  excep- 
„ , . „ tions,  was  freely  admitted.  But  the  same  Par- 

strangers,  liament  which  had  persecuted  Wilkes,  was  des- 
tined to  bring  to  an  issue  other  great  questions, 
affecting  the  relations  of  Parliament  to  the  people.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  the  worst  of  Parliaments  should  have 
been  the  most  resolute  in  enforcing  the  rule  for  excluding 
strangers.2  It  was  at  war  with  the  public  liberties  ; and  its 
evil  deeds  were  best  performed  in  secret.  The  exclusion  of 
strangers  was  generally  more  strict  than  had  been  custom- 
ary; and  whenever  a popular  member  of  Opposition  en- 

1 Rockingham  Mem.  i.  71. 

2 This  Parliament,  assembled  May  10th,  1768,  and  dissolved  June  22d, 
1774,  was  commonly  called  the  unreported  Parliament,  in  consequence  of 
the  strict  enforcement  of  the  standing  order  for  the  exclusion  of  strangers. 
Pref.  to  Cavendish’s  Deb.  Sir  Henry  Cavendish  has  supplied  a great  hiatus 
in  the  debates  of  this  period,  and  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  publi- 
cation of  his  valuable  work  has  never  been  completed.  They  consist  of 
forty-nine  small  4to  volumes,  amongst  the  Egerton  MSS.  at  the  British 
Museum,  of  which  less  than  half  were  edited  by  Mr.  Wright,  and  published 
in  two  volumes. 


EXCLUSION  OF  STRANGERS. 


387 


deavored  to  make  himself  heard  by  the  people,  the  ready 
expedient  was  adopted  of  closing  the  doors.  Burke,  describ- 
ing the  position  of  an  opposition  member  at  this  period, 
wrote,  “ In  the  House  he  votes  forever  in  a dispirited  mi- 
nority ; if  he  speaks,  the  doors  are  locked.”  1 Could  any 
abuse  of  privilege  be  more  monstrous  than  this  ? Was  any 
misrepresentation  of  reporters  half  so  mischievous  ? 

Lord  Chatham’s  repeated  motions  impugning  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Commons  upon  the  Middlesex  proceedings 
election,  were  naturally  distasteful  to  ministers, ln  the  Lords‘ 
and  to  the  majority  of  the  House  of  Lords  ; who,  being  un- 
able to  repress  his  impetuous  eloquence,  determined  that,  at 
least,  it  should  not  be  heard  beyond  their  walls.  Accord- 
ingly on  the  14th  May,  1770,  on  his  motion  for  a dissolution 
of  Parliament,  the  Lords  ordered  the  exclusion  of  all  but 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  sons  of  peers ; 
and  no  reports  of  the  debate  reached  the  public. 

In  the  next  session,  the  same  tactics  were  resumed.  On 
the  10th  December,  the  Duke  of  Manchester  Lord  Gower 
rose,  to  make  a motion  relative  to  preparations  H^etobe 
for  the  war  with  Spain,  then  believed  to  be  im-  cleared, 
pending;  when  he  was  interrupted  by  Lord  Gower,  who 
desired  that  the  House  might  be  cleared.  He  urged  as 
reasons  for  excluding  strangers,  that  the  motion  had  been 
brought  on  without  notice ; that  matters  might  be  stated 
which  ought  not  to  be  divulged ; that,  from  the  crowded 
state  of  the  House,  emissaries  from  Spain  might  be  present ; 
and  lastly,  that  notes  were  taken  of  their  debates.  The 
Duke  of  Richmond  attempted  to  arrest  the  execution  of  the 
order ; but  his  voice  was  drowned  in  clamor.  Lord  Chat- 
ham rose  to  order,  but  failed  to  obtain  a hearing.  The 
Lord  Chancellor  attempted  to  address  the  House  and  re- 
store order  ; but  even  his  voice  could  not  be  heard.  Lord 
Chatham,  and  eighteen  other  peers,  — indignant  at  the  dis- 
orderly uproar,  by  which  every  effort  to  address  the  House 
1 Present  Discontents;  Works,  ii.  301. 


388 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


had  been  put  down,  — withdrew  from  their  places.  The 
messengers  were  already  proceeding  to  clear  the  House, 
Members  of  w^en  several  members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
excluded*10118  w^°  ^ad  been  waiting  at  the  bar  to  bring  up  a 
from  the  bill,  desired  to  stay  for  that  purpose ; but  were 
turned  out  with  the  crowd,  — several  peers  hav- 
ing gone  down  to  the  bar,  to  hasten  their  withdrawal.  They 
were  presently  called  in  again  ; but  the  moment  they  had 
delivered  their  message,  — and  before  time  had  been  al- 


lowed them  to  withdraw  from  the  bar,  — an  outcry  arose, 
and  they  were  literally  hooted  out  of  the  House.1 

Furious  at  this  indecent  treatment,  the  members  hastened 
Misunder-  back  to  their  own  House.  The  first  result  of  their 
t™n thetwo  anger  was  sufficiently  ridiculous.  Mr.  George 
Houses.  Onslow  desired  the  House  to  be  cleared,  “ peers 
and  all.”  The  only  peers  below  the  bar  were  the  very  lords 
who  had  in  vain  resisted  the  exclusion  of  strangers  from 


their  own  House,  which  they  had  just  left  in  indignation  ; 
and  now  the  resentment  of  the  Commons,  — provoked  by 
others,  — was  first  expended  upon  them. 

In  debate,  the  insult  to  the  Commons  was  warmly  re- 
sented. Various  motions  were  made:  — for  inspecting  the 
Lords’  journals ; for  demanding  a conference  upon  the  sub- 
ject; for  sending  messages  by  the  eldest  sons  of  peers  and 
masters  in  Chancery,  who  alone,  it  was  said,  would  not  be 
insulted ; and  for  restraining  members  from  going  to  the 
Lords  without  leave.  But  none  of  them  were  accepted.2 
The  only  retaliation  that  could  be  agreed  upon,  was  the 
exclusion  of  peers,  which  involved  a consequence  by  no 
means  desired,  — the  continued  exclusion  of  the  public. 

In  the  Lords,  sixteen  peers  signed  a strong  protest  against 
the  riotous  proceedings  of  their  House,  and  deprecating  the 


1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  1318-1320;  Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.217;  Chatham  Corresp. 
iv.  51. 

2 Dec.  10th  and  13th,  1770;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  1322;  Cavendish  Deb.  ii. 
149,  160;  Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  228. 


PUBLICATION  OF  DEBATES. 


389 


exclusion  of  strangers.  An  order,  however,  was  made  that 
none  but  persons  having  a right  to  be  present,  should  be  ad- 
mitted during  the  sitting  of  the  House ; and  instructions 
were  given  to  the  officers,  that  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  should  not  be  allowed  to  come  to  the  bar,  except 
when  announced  as  bringing  messages  ; and  should  then  im- 
mediately withdraw.1  To  this  rule  the  Lords  continued 
strictly  to  adhere  for  the  remainder  of  the  session  ; and  none 
of  their  debates  were  reported,  unless  notes  were  communi- 
cated by  the  peers  themselves.  The  Commons  were  less 
tenacious,  or  their  officers  less  strict ; and  strangers  gradu- 
ally crept  back  to  the  gallery.  Lord  Chatham  happily  ex- 
pressed his  contempt  for  a senate  debating  with  closed  doors. 
Writing  to  Colonel  Barre  on  the  22d  January,  1771,  he 
says  : “ I take  it  for  granted  that  the  same  declaration  will 
be  laid  before  the  tapestry  on  Friday,  which  will  be  offered 
to  the  live  figures  in  St.  Stephen’s;  ” 2 and  again  on  the  25th 
he  writes  to  Lady  Chatham,  “ J ust  returned  from  the  tapes- 
try.” 3 The  mutual  exclusion  of  the  members  of  the  two 
Houses,  continued  to  be  enforced,  in  a spirit  of  vindictive 
retaliation,  for  several  years.4 

In  the  Commons,  however,  this  system  of  exclusion  took 
a new  turn  ; and,  having  commenced  in  a quarrel  Contest  with 
with  the  Peers,  it  ended  in  a collision  with  the  the  printers, 
press.  Colonel  George  Onslow  complained  of  the 
debates  which  still  appeared  in  the  newspapers  ; and  insinu- 
ating that  they  must  have  been  supplied  by  members  them- 
selves, insisted  upon  testing  this  view,  by  excluding  all  but 
members.5  The  reports  continued ; and  now  he  fell  upon 
the  printers. 

But  before  this  new  contest  is  entered  upon,  it  will  be 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  1319-1321. 

2 Chatham  Corresp.  iv.  73. 

3 Ibid.  86. 

4 Debate  in  the  Commons,  Dec.  12th,  1774;  Pari.  Hist,  xviii.  52 ; Burke’s 
Speeches,  i.  250. 

5 Feb.  7th,  1771;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  1355,  n.  ; Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  244. 


390 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


necessary  to  review  the  position  which  the  press  occupied 
Publication  at  this  time,  in  its  relation  to  the  debates  of  Parlia- 
of  debates.  ment.  The  prohibition  to  print  and  publish  the 
debates,  naturally  dates  from  a later  period  than  the  exclu- 
sion of  strangers.  It  was  not  until  the  press  had  made 
great  advances,  that  such  a privilege  was  declared.  Par- 
liament, in  order  to  protect  its  freedom  of  speech,  had 
guarded  its  proceedings  by  a strong  fence  of  privilege  ; but 
the  printing  of  its  debates  was  an  event  beyond  its  pre- 
vision. 

In  1641,  the  Long  Parliament  permitted  the  publication 
Progress  of  of  its  proceedings,  which  appeared  under  the  title 
reporting.  0p  « Diurnal  Occurrences  in  Parliament.”  The 
printing  of  speeches,  however,  without  leave  of  the  House, 
was,  for  the  first  time,  prohibited.1  In  particular  cases,  in- 
deed, where  a speech  was  acceptable  to  the  Parliament,  it 
was  ordered  to  be  printed ; but  if  any  speech  was  published 
obnoxious  to  the  dominant  party,  the  vengeance  of  the 
House  was  speedily  provoked.  Sir  E.  Dering  was  ex- 
pelled and  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  for  printing  a collection 
of  his  speeches ; and  the  book  was  ordered  to  be  burned  by 
the  common  hangman.2 

The  prohibition  to  print  debates  was  continued  after  the 
Restoration ; but,  in  order  to  prevent  inaccurate  accounts  of 
the  business  transacted,  the  House  of  Commons,  in  1680, 
directed  its  “ votes  and  proceedings,”  without  any  reference 
to  debates,  to  be  printed  under  the  direction  of  the  Speaker.3 
Debates  were  also  frequently  published,  notwithstanding  the 
prohibition.  When  it  served  the  purpose  of  men  like  Lord 
Shaftesbury,  that  any  debate  should  be  circulated,  it  made 
its  appearance  in  the  form  of  a letter  or  pamphlet.4  An- 

1 July  13th  and  22d;  Com.  Journ.  ii.  209,  220. 

2 Feb.  2d,  1641 ; Com.  Journ.  ii.  411. 

3 Ibid . ix.  74;  Grey’s  Deb.  viii.  292. 

4 “Letter  from  a Person  of  Quality  to  a Friend  in  the  Country,”  1675, 
by  Locke.  “ Letter  from  a Parliament-man  to  his  Friend,  concerning  the 
Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1675.” 


PUBLICATION  OF  DEBATES. 


391 


drew  Marvell  reported  the  proceedings  of  the  Commons,  to 
his  constituents  at  Hull,  from  1660  to  1678  ;*  and  Grey,  for 
thirty  years  member  for  Derby,  took  notes  of  the  debates 
from  1667  to  1694,  which  are  a valuable  contribution  to  the 
history  of  that  time.2 

After  the  Revolution,  Parliament  was  more  jealous  than 
ever  of  the  publication  of  its  proceedings,  or  of  any  allusion 
to  its  debates.  By  frequent  resolutions,3  and  by  the  pun- 
ishment  of  offenders,  both  Houses  endeavored  to  restrain 
44  news-letter  writers  ” from  44  intermeddling  with  their  de- 
bates or  other  proceedings,”  or  44  giving  any  account  or  min- 
ute of  the  debates.”  But  privilege  could  not  prevail  against 
the  press,  nor  against  the  taste  for  political  news,  which  is 
natural  to  a free  country. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Anne,  regular  but  im- 
perfect accounts  of  all  the  principal  debates,  were  published 
by  Boyer.4  From  that  time,  reports  continued  to  appear 
in  Boyer’s  44  Political  State  of  Great  Britain,”  the  44  London 
Magazine,”  and  the  44  Gentleman’s  Magazine,”  the  authors  of 
which  were  frequently  assisted  with  notes  from  members  of 
Parliament.  In  the  latter,  Dr.  Johnson  wrote  the  Parlia- 
mentary reports,  from  the  19th  of  Nov.,  1740,  till  the  23d  of 
Feb.,  1743,  from  the  notes  of  Cave  and  his  assistants.  The 
names  of  the  speakers,  however,  were  omitted.6  Until  1738, 
it  had  been  the  practice  to  give  their  initials  only,  and,  in 
order  to  escape  the  censure  of  Parliament,  to  withhold  the 
publication  of  the  debates,  until  after  the  session.  In.  that 
year,  the  Commons  prohibited  the  publication  of  debates,  or 
proceedings,  44  as  well  during  the  recess,  as  the  sitting  of 
Parliament ; ” and  resolved  to  44  proceed  with  the  utmost 
severity  against  offenders.” 6 After  this  period,  the  re- 

1 Letters  to  the  Corporation  of  Hull;  Marvell’s  Works,  i.  1-400. 

2 They  were  published  in  ten  volumes  8vo,  1769. 

3 Commons,  Dec.  22d,  1694.  Feb.  11th,  1695,  Jan.  18th,  1697,  &c. ; Lords, 
Feb.  27th,  1698. 

4 Boyer’s  Political  State  of  Great  Britain,  was  commenced  in  1711. 

5 Prefaces  to  Cobbett’s  Pari.  Hist.  vols.  ix.-xiii. 

6 April  13th,  1738.  Pari.  Hist.  x.  800. 


392 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


porters,  being  in  fear  of  parliamentary  privilege,  were  still 
more  careful  in  their  disguises.  In  the  “ Gentleman’s  Mag- 
azine,” the  debates  were  assigned  to  the  “ Senate  of  Great 
Lilliput ; ” and  in  the  “ London  Magazine  ” to  the  Political 
Club,  where  the  speeches  were  attributed  to  Mark  Anthony, 
Brutus,  and  other  Roman  worthies.  This  caution  was  not 
superfluous ; for  both  Houses  were  quick  to  punish  the  publi- 
cation of  their  proceedings,  in  any  form ; and  printers  and 
publishers  became  familiar  with  the  Black  Rod,  the  Sergeant- 
at-Anns,  and  Newgate.1  At  length,  in  1771,  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  Wilkes,2  notes  of  the  speeches,  with  the  names  of  the 
speakers,  were  published  in  several  journals.3 

These  papers  had  rarely  attempted  to  give  a correct  and 
impartial  account  of  the  debates ; but  had  misrep- 

Misrepresen-  A 

tations  of  re-  resented  them  to  suit  the  views  of  diflerent  parties. 

Dr.  Johnson  is  said  to  have  confessed  that  “ he 
took  care  that  the  Whig  dogs  should  not  have  the  best  of 
it ; ” and,  in  the  same  spirit,  the  arguments  of  all  parties 
were  in  turn  perverted  or  suppressed.  Galling  as  was  this 
practice,  it  had  been  less  offensive  while  the  names  of  the 
speakers  were  withheld ; but  when  these  were  added,  mem- 
bers were  personally  affronted  by  the  misconstruction  of 
their  opinions  and  arguments,  and  by  the  ludicrous  form  in 
which  they  were  often  presented.  The  chief  complaints 
against  reporting  had  arisen  from  the  misrepresentations,  to 
which  it  was  made  subservient.  In  the  debate  upon  this 
subject  in  1738,  nearly  all  the  speakers,  including  Sir  W. 
Wyndham,  Sir  W.  Yonge,  and  Mr.  Winnington,  agreed  in 
these  complaints,  and  rested  their  objections  to  reporting,  on 

1 Woodfall,  Baldwin,  Jay,  Miller,  Oxlade,  Randall,  Egglesham,  Owen, 
and  Knight,  are  amongst  the  names  of  publishers  committed  or  censured 
for  publishing  debates  or  proceedings  in  Parliament.  Such  was  the  ex- 
travagance with  which  the  Lords  enforced  their  privilege,  that  in  1729,  a 
part  of  their  Journal  having  been  printed  in  Rymer’s  Fcedera,  they  ordered 
it  to  be  taken  out  and  destroyed.  — Lords'  Journ.  xxiii.  422. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  278. 

3 The  London  Evening  Post,  the  St.  James’s  Chronicle,  the  Gazetteer,  and 
others. 


PUBLICATION  OF  DEBATES. 


393 


that  ground.  The  case  was  well  and  humorously  stated,  by 
Sir  E.  Walpole.  “ I have  read  some  debates  of  this  House, 
in  which  I have  been  made  to  speak  the  very  reverse  of 
what  I meant.  I have  read  others,  wherein  all  the  wit,  the 
learning,  and  the  argument  has  been  thrown  into  one  side, 
and  on  the  other,  nothing  but  what  was  low,  mean,  and 
ridiculous ; and  yet,  when  it  comes  to  the  question,  the 
division  has  gone  against  the  side  which,  upon  the  face  of 
the  debate,  had  reason  and  justice  to  support  it.  So  that, 
had  I been  a stranger  to  the  proceedings,  and  to  the  nature 
of  the  arguments  themselves,  I must  have  thought  this  to 
have  been  one  of  the  most  contemptible  assemblies  on  the 
face  of  the  earth.”  In  this  debate,  Mr.  Pulteney  was  the 
only  speaker  who  distinctly  objected  to  the  publication  of 
the  speeches  of  members,  on  the  ground  “ that  it  looks  very 
like  making  them  accountable  without  doors,  for  what  they 
say  within.”  1 

Indeed,  it  is  probable  that  the  early  jealousies  of  Parlia- 
ment would  soon  have  been  overcome,  if  the  re-  . 

Offensive  ad- 

ports  had  been  impartial.  The  development  of  juncts  to  re- 
tlie  liberty  of  the  press  was  checked  by  its  own  porting' 
excesses ; and  the  publication  of  debates  was  retarded  by 
the  unfairness  of  reporters.  Nor  were  the  complaints  of 
members  confined  to  mere  misrepresentation.  The  reports 
were  frequently  given  in  the  form  of  narratives,  in  which 
the  speakers  were  distinguished  by  nicknames,  and  de- 
scribed in  opprobrious  terms.  Thus,  Colonel  George  Ons- 
low was  called  u little  cocking  George,” 2 “ the  little  scoun- 
drel,” 3 and  “ that  little  paltry,  insignificant  insect.”  4 The 
Colonel  and  his  cousin  were  also  spoken  of  in  scurrilous 
comments,  as  being  like  “ the  constellations  of  the  two  bears 
in  the  heavens,  one  being  called  the  great , and  the  other  the 
little  scoundrel.”  5 


1 Pari.  Hist.  x.  300. 

2 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  257. 

3 Ibid.  258. 


4 Ibid.  377,  n. 

5 Ibid.  379. 


394 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


To  report  the  debates  in  such  a spirit,  was  at  once  to  vio- 
late the  orders  of  the  House,  and  to  publish  libellous  insults 
upon  its  members.  Parliament  had  erred  in  persisting  in 
the  prohibition  of  reporting,  long  after  its  occasion  had 
passed  away ; and  the  reporters  had  sacrificed  a great  public 
privilege,  to  the  base  uses  of  a scurrilous  press.  The  events 
of  the  first  ten  years  of  this  reign,  had  increased  the  violence 
of  public  writers,  and  imbittered  the  temper  of  the  people. 
The  “ North  Briton  ” and  “ Junius,”  had  assailed  the  highest 
personages,  and  the  most  august  assemblies,  with  unex- 
ampled license  and  audacity.  Wilkes  had  defied  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  the  ministers.  The  city  had  bearded  the 
king  upon  his  throne.  Yet  this  was  the  time  chosen  by  an 
unpopular  House  of  Commons,  to  insist  too  rigorously  upon 
its  privileges,  and  to  seek  a contest  with  the  press. 

On  the  8th  February,  1771,  Colonel  George  Onslow  made 
Complaints  a comP^aint  of  uThe  Gazetteer  and  New  Daily 
against  Advertiser,”  printed  for  R.  Thompson,  and  of 

Thompson  7 r 1 

and whebie,  the  “Middlesex  Journal,”  printed  by  R.  Wheble, 
“as  misrepresenting  the  speeches,  and  reflecting 
on  several  of  the  members  of  this  House.”  The  printers 
were  ordered  to  attend,  — but  not  without  serious  warnings 
and  remonstrances  from  those  who  foresaw  the  entangle- 
ments, into  which  the  House  was  likely  to  be  drawn.1  They 
kept  out  of  the  way,  and  were  ordered  to  be  taken  into  cus- 
tody. The  Sergeant  proceeded  to  execute  the  order,  and 
was  laughed  at  by  their  servants.2  Thus  thwarted,  the 
House  addressed  the  king  to  issue  a proclamation,  offering  a 
reward  for  their  apprehension. 

Meanwhile,  the  offences  for  which  the  House  was  pursuing 
„ Thompson  and  Wheble,  were  practised  by  several 

Complaints  r . , i i i 

against  other  other  printers  ; and  on  the  12th  March,  Colonel 
printers.  Qnsiow  made  a complaint  against  the  printers  of 
six  other  newspapers.  The  House  had  not  yet  succeeded  in 
apprehending  the  first  offenders,  and  now  another  host  was 
1 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  257.  2 Ibid.  324. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  PRINTERS. 


395 


arraigned  before  them.  In  some  of  these  papers,  the  old 
disguises  were  retained.  In  the  “ St.  James’s  Chronicle  ” the 
speeches  were  entitled  “ Debates  of  the  representatives  of 
Utopia;”1  Mr.  Dyson  was  described  as  “Jeremiah  Wey- 
mouth, Esq.,  the  d n of  this  country,”  and  Mr.  Constan- 

tine Phipps  as  “ Mr.  Constantine  Lincoln.” 2 None  of  the 
errors  o£  Parliament  have  been  committed,  without  the  warn- 
ings and  protests  of  some  of  its  enlightened  members ; and 
this  further  onslaught  upon  the  printers  was  vigorously  re- 
sisted. The  minority  availed  themselves  of  motions  for  ad- 
journment, amendments,  and  other  parliamentary  forms, 
well  adapted  for  delay,  until  past  four  in  the  morning.  Dur- 
ing this  discussion  there  were  no  less  than  twenty-three 
divisions,  — an  unprecedented  number.3  Burke  afterwards 
said  of  these  proceedings  : “ Posterity  will  bless  the  pertina- 
ciousness of  that  day.”  4 

All  the  six  printers  were  ordered  to  attend  at  the  bar  ; 
and  on  the  day  appointed,  four  of  the  number  appeared,  and 
a fifth,  — Mr.  Woodfall,  — being  already  in  the  custody  of 
the  Black  Rod,  by  order  of  the  Lords,  was  prevented  from 
attending.  Two  of  them,  Baldwin  and  Wright,  were  rep- 
rimanded on  their  knees  and  discharged ; and  Bladon,  having 
made  a very  humble  submission,  was  discharged  without  a 
reprimand.  Evans,  who  had  also  attended  the  order  of  the 
House,  went  home  before  he  was  called  in,  in  consequence,  it 
was  said,  of  an  accident  to  his  wife.  He  was  ordered  to  at- 
tend on  another  day ; but  wrote  a letter  to  the  Speaker,  in 
which  he  questioned  the  authority  of  the  House,  and  declined 
to  obey  its  order.  Lastly,  Miller  did  not  attend,  and  was 
ordered  into  custody  for  his  offence.5 

On  the  14th  March,  Wheble,  who  was  still  at  large, 
addressed  a letter  to  the  Speaker,  inclosing  the  opinion  of 

1 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  383. 

2 One  represented  Weymouth,  and  the  other  Lincoln. 

8 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  377. 

4 Ibid.  395. 

5 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  90,  n. ; Com.  Journ.  xxxiii.  250-259. 


396 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


counsel  on  his  case,  and  declaring  his  determination  “ to 
yield  no  obedience  but  to  the  laws  of  the  land.” 

WllGblfi  tfllCGT)  * 

before  Aider-  The  next  day,  he  was  collusively  apprehended 
man  1 es‘  by  Carpenter,  a printer,  — by  virtue  of  the  proc- 
lamation, — and  taken  before  Alderman  Wilkes  ! This  dex- 
terous and  cunning  agitator  had  encouraged  the  printers  to 
resist  the  authority  of  the  House,  and  had  concerted  meas- 
ures for  defying  its  jurisdiction,  and  insulting  its  officers.  He 
immediately  discharged  the  prisoner,  and  bound  him  over  to 
prosecute  Carpenter,  for  an  assault  and  false  imprisonment. 
He  further  wrote  a letter  to  Lord  Halifax,  the  Secretary  of 
State,  acquainting  him  that  Wheble  had  been  apprehended 
by  a person  who  “ was  neither  a constable  nor  peace-officer 
of  the  city,”  and  for  no  legal  offence,  but  merely  in  con- 
sequence of  the  proclamation,  — “ in  direct  violation  of  the 
rights  of  an  Englishman,  and  of  the  chartered  privileges  of 
a citizen  of  this  metropolis,”  — and  that  he  had  discharged 
him.1 

On  the  same  day,  Thompson  was  apprehended  by  another 
And  Thomp-  printer,  and  carried  before  Alderman  Oliver  at  the 
de^manoii^1"  Mansion  House  ; but  “ not  being  accused  of  having 
Ter-  committed  any  crime,”  was  discharged.  In  both 

cases,  the  captors  applied  for  a certificate  that  they  had  ap- 
prehended the  prisoners,  in  order  to  obtain  the  rewards 
offered  by  the  proclamation  ; but  the  collusion  was  too  ob- 
vious, and  the  Treasury  refused  to  pay  them. 

On  the  following  day,  a graver  business  arose.  Hitherto 
Commitment  legality  of  apprehending  persons  under  the 
of  the  mes-  proclamation,  had  alone  been  questioned  ; but  now 
the  authority  of  the  House  was  directly  contemned. 
In  obedience  to  the  Speaker’s  warrant  for  taking  Miller  into 
custody,  Whittam,  a messenger  of  the  House,  succeeded  in 
apprehending  him,  in  his  shop.  But  Miller,  instead  of  sub- 
mitting, sent  for  a constable,  — accused  the  messenger  of 
having  assaulted  him  in  his  own  house,  — and  gave  him  into 
1 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  95. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  PRINTERS. 


397 


custody.  They  were  both  taken  to  the  Mansion  House,  and 
appeared  before  the  Lord  Mayor,  Mr.  Alderman  Oliver,  and 
Mr.  Alderman  Wilkes.  Miller  charged  the  messenger  with 
an  assault  and  false  imprisonment.  The  messenger  justified 
himself  by  the  production  of  the  Speaker’s  warrant ; and  the 
Deputy  Sergeant-at-Arms  claimed  both  the  messenger  and 
his  prisoher.  But  the  Lord  Mayor  inquired  if  the  messenger 
was  a peace-officer  or  constable,  and  if  the  warrant  was 
backed  by  a city  magistrate ; and  being  answered  in  the 
negative,  discharged  Miller  out  of  custody.  The  charge  of 
the  latter  against  the  messenger  was  then  proved ; and  Whit- 
tam,  by  direction  of  the  Sergeant,  having  declined  to  give  bail, 
was  committed  under  a warrant,  signed  by  the  three  magis- 
trates. After  his  commitment,  he  was  admitted  to  bail  on  his 
own  application. 

The  artful  contrivances  of  Wilkes  were  completely  suc- 
cessful. The  contumacious  printers  were  still  at  large  ; and 
he  had  brought  the  city  into  open  conflict  with  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  House  was  in  a ferment.  Many  members 
who  had  resisted  the  prosecution  of  the  printers,  admitted 
that  the  privileges  of  the  House  had  now  been  violated ; but 
they  were  anxious  to  avert  any  further  collision  between  the 
House,  — already  too  much  discredited  by  recent  proceedings, 
— and  the  popular  magistracy  of  the  city.  The  Lord  Mayor, 
Mr.  Brass  Crosby,  being  a member  of  the  House,  was  first 
ordered  to  attend  in  his  place,  on  the  following  day  ; 1 and 
afterwards  Mr.  Oliver,  also  a member,  was  ordered  to  attend 
in  his  place,  and  Mr.  Wilkes  at  the  bar,  on  other  days. 

At  the  appointed  time,  the  Lord  Mayor,  though  he  had 
been  confined  for  several  days  by  the  gout,  obeyed  The  Lord 
the  order  of  the  House.  His  carriage  was  escorted  Mayor  (Brass 

o Crosby)  at- 

by  a prodigious  crowd,  — whose  attendance  had  tends  the 
been  invited  by  a handbill ; and  he  was  received 
with  such  acclamations  in  the  lobby,  that  the  Speaker  desired 
it  to  be  cleared  of  strangers.2  The  Lord  Mayor,  — who  was 

1 March  19th ; Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  98 ; Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  400. 

2 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  422. 


398 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


so  ill  as  to  be  obliged  to  speak  sitting,  — justified  himself  by 
his  oath  of  office,  which  bound  him  to  protect  the  citizens  in 
their  rights  and  franchises.  He  stated  that  by  the  charters 
of  the  city,  confirmed  by  Act  of  Parliament,  no  warrant, 
process,  or  attachment  could  be  executed  within  the  city  but 
by  its  own  magistrates,  and  that  he  should  have  been  guilty 
of  perjury,  if  he  had  not  discharged  the  prisoner.  He  then 
desired  to  be  heard  by  counsel,  in  support  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  city.  The  Speaker  intimated  that  the  House  could 
not  hear  counsel  against  its  privileges  ; and  while  this  matter 
was  under  discussion,  the  Lord  Mayor,  being  too  ill  to  remain 
in  the  House,  was  allowed  to  go  home.  It  was  at  length  de- 
cided to  hear  counsel  on  such  points  as  did  not  controvert  the 
privileges  of  the  House  ; 1 and  the  same  right  was  afterwards 
conceded  to  Alderman  Oliver.2  The  scene  was  enlivened 
by  Mr.  Wilkes,  who  having  been  ordered  to  attend  at  the 
bar,  wrote  to  the  Speaker,  with  his  usual  effrontery,  claiming 
to  attend  in  his  place,  as  member  for  Middlesex.3 

So  far  the  House  had  stood  upon  its  unassailable  privi- 
lege of  commitment;  but  now  it  proceeded  to  a 

Record  of  re-  x 

cognizances  violation  of  the  law,  at  once  arbitrary  and  ridicu- 
lous. The  clerk  to  the  Lord  Mayor  had  been 
ordered  to  attend  with  the  book  containing  the  recognizance 
of  Whittam  the  messenger ; and  on  its  production  by  that 
officer,  he  was  ordered  to  expunge  the  entry  at  the  table, 
which  he  accordingly  did.4  While  this  scene  was  being 
enacted,  most  of  the  Opposition  members  left  the  House, 
in  order  to  mark  their  reprobation  of  an  act,  by  which  a 
record  was  effaced,  — over  which  the  House  had  no  author- 
ity, — and  the  course  of  justice  violently  stayed.5  Accord- 
ing to  Lord  Chatham,  it  was  the  44  act  of  a mob,  and  not  of 
a Parliament.”  6 

1 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  436. 

2 Ibid.  442 ; Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  119. 

8 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  113,  n. 

4 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  438;  Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  117 ; Com.  Journ.  xxxiii.  275. 

6 Ann.  Peg.  1771,  p.  66;  Walpole’s  Mem.  iv.  294. 

6 May  1st,  1771 ; Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  221. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  PRINTERS. 


399 


.The  House  then  ordered  that  no  prosecution  should  be 

commenced  against  the  messenger,  for  his  pre-  MesseT]ger 

tended  assault.  He  was  nevertheless  indicted  ; saved  from 
. n . . . , prosecution. 

and  a true  bill  being  found  against  him,  he  was 

only  saved  by  the  Attorney- General,  who  entered  a nolle 

'prosequi. 

Some  delay  ensued  in  the  proceedings,  in  consequence  of 
the  continued  indisposition  of  the  Lord  Mayor ; The  Lord 
but  on  the  25th  March,  he  and  Mr.  Alderman  ^derman1 
Oliver  attended  in  their  places.  They  were  ac-  ?nhtheireard 
companied  to  the  House  by  immense  crowds,  who  places, 
cheered  them  on  their  way.  Before  their  case  was  proceed- 
ed with,  the  order  for  the  attendance  on  that  day  of  Aider- 
man  Wilkes,  — the  prime  mover  of  all  this  mischief,  — - 
was  discharged  ; the  court  and  the  ministers  being  fairly 
afraid  of  another  contest  with  so  dangerous  an  antagonist. 
The  Lord  Mayor  now  declined  being  heard  by  counsel ; and 
after  the  reading  of  the  city  charters,  and  oaths  of  office,  he 
briefly  urged  that  he  had  acted  in  obedience  to  the  laws  and 
constitution,  and  appealed  to  the  justice  of  the  House.  An 
endeavor  was  made  to  evade  any  further  proceedings,  by 
the  previous  question  ; but  after  an  exciting  debate,  — inter- 
rupted by  the  shouts  and  uproar  of  the  crowd,  by  which  the 
House  was  surrounded,1  — resolutions  were  agreed  to,  de- 
claring that  the  privileges  of  the  House  had  been  violated.2 
The  Lord  Mayor  had  been  allowed  to  go  home  early  in  the 
evening ; when  the  crowd  took  the  horses  from  his  carriage, 
and  bore  him  triumphantly  to  the  Mansion  House.  Aider- 
man  Oliver  being  still  in  the  House,  was  now  Alderman 
called  upon  for  his  defence.  In  a few  words  he  titled  tothe 
said  that  he  gloried  in  what  he  had  done  ; that  he  Tower- 
was  unconcerned  at  the  punishment  intended  for  him,  and 
which  nothing  he  could  say  would  avert;  “ and  as  he  expect- 
ed little  from  their  justice,  he  defied  their  power.”  3 Motions 
were  immediately  made  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  a breach 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  125;  Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  452,  454. 

2 Cavendish  Deb.  ii.  461.  3 pari.  Hist.  xvii.  125. 


400 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


of  privilege,  and  should  be  committed  to  the  Tower ; and 
after  a debate,  protracted,  — by  earnest  protests  and  remon- 
strances against  this  proceeding,  — till  half-past  three  in  the 
morning,  an  order  for  his  commitment  was  agreed  to.1 

At  the  next  sitting  of  the  House,  the  Lord  Mayor  attend- 
ee Lord  ed  m bis  place.  Again  he  was  accompanied  by  a 
mSedto^he  crowd,  larger  and  more  tumultuous  than  before. 
Tower.  The  members  with  difficulty  made  their  way 
through  Palace  Yard  and  Westminster  Hall.  Lord  North’s 
carriage  was  broken  to  pieces,  and  he  himself  escaped,  — 
not  without  injury, — with  the  assistance  of  Sir  W.  Mere- 
dith. Mr.  Charles  Fox,  — a violent  champion  of  privilege, 
— and  his  brother  Stephen,  had  their  carriages  injured ; 
and  several  members  were  insulted  and  pelted  with  stones 
and  mud.  For  some  time,  the  House  was  unable  to  proceed 
to  business.  The  magistrates  tried  in  vain  to  disperse  or 
tranquillize  the  mob  ; but  the  Sheriffs,  — who  both  happened 
to  be  members,  — being  sent  by  the  Speaker,  at  length  suc- 
ceeded in  restoring  order.  In  consideration  of  the  Lord 
Mayor’s  state  of  health,  it  was  at  first  proposed  merely  to 
commit  him  to  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  ; but  as 
he  boldly  declined  to  accept  this  favor  from  the  House,  and 
desired  to  bear  his  friend  Oliver  company,  he  was  committed 
to  the  Tower.2  Meanwhile  Wilkes,  the  chief  offender,  was 
still  at  large.  He  had  been  again  ordered  to  attend  on  the 
8th  April ; but  ministers  discreetly  moved  the  adjournment 
for  the  Easter  Holidays  until  the  9th  ; and  thus  the  dreaded 
culprit  was  eluded.  This  subterfuge  may  have  been  pru- 
dent : but  it  was  not  magnanimous. 

The  authority  of  the  House  of  Commons  had  clearly 
Ovation  of  the  been  defied;  and  however  ill-advised  the  pro- 
pnsoners.  ceedings  which  had  led  to  the  contest  with  the 
city  magistrates,  the  House  could  scarcely  have  flinched 

1 He  was  allowed  to  sleep  at  his  house  that  night,  and  early  the  next 
morning  the  Sergeant  took  him  to  the  Tower.  (Gentleman’s  Mag.,  cited  in 
Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  155,  n.) 

2 March  27th;  Pari.  Hist.  xvii.  157. 


CONTEST  WITH  THE  PRINTERS. 


401 


from  the  vindication  of  its  privileges.1  But  Parliament  has 
no  means  of  punishing  a popular  offender.  The  Lord  May- 
or, on  leaving  the  House,  accompanied  by  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  was  surrounded  by  the  crowd,  who  took  the  horses 
from  his  carriage,  and  bore  him  to  Temple  Bar.  Here  they 
shut  the  city  gates,  and  would  have  rescued  him  from  cus- 
tody, but  for  the  adroitness  of  the  Lord  Mayor,  who  assured 
them  he  was  going  home,  accompanied  by  his  friends.  He 
slept  that  night  at  the  Mansion  House,  and  early  the  follow- 
ing morning  reached  the  Tower,  without  observation.  Here 
the  prisoners  received  every  mark  of  public  attention  and 
sympathy.  Visited  by  the  most  distinguished  leaders  of  the 
Opposition,  — attended  by  deputations,  — flattered  in  ad- 
dresses, — complimented  by  the  freedom  of  many  cities,  — 
and  overloaded  with  presents,  — their  imprisonment,  instead 
of  being  a punishment,  was  a long-continued  ovation.  They 
failed  to  obtain  their  release  under  writs  of  habeas  corpus , 
as  the  legality  of  their  commitment  could  not  be  impeached ; 
but  on  the  8th  May,  after  six  weeks’  confinement,  the  pro- 
rogation of  Parliament  set  them  at  liberty.  Attended  by  a 
triumphal  procession,  they  proceeded  from  the  Tower  to  the 
Mansion  House ; and  the  people  exulted  at  the  liberation  of 
their  popular  magistrates.2 

1 Lord  Chatham  condemned  all  the  parties  to  this  contest.  “Nothing 
appears  to  me  more  distinct  than  declaring  their  right  to  jurisdiction,  with 
regard  to  printers  of  their  proceedings,  and  debates,  and  punishing  their 
member,  and  in  him  his  constituents,  for  what  he  has  done  in  discharge  of 
his  oath  and  conscience  as  a magistrate.”  Lord  Chatham  to  Colonel  Barr£, 
March  26th,  1771.  — Chatham  Corresp.  iv.  136. 

Lord  Chatham,  writing  to  Earl  Temple,  April  17th,  1771,  said,  “ Great  is 
the  absurdity  of  the  city  in  putting  the  quarrel  on  the  exercise  of  the  most 
tenable  privilege  the  House  is  possessed  of,  — a right  to  summon  before 
them  printers  printing  their  debates  during  the  session.  Incomparable  is 
the  wrong-headedness  and  folly  of  the  Court,  ignorant  how  to  be  twenty- 
four  hours  on  good  ground;  for  they  have  most  ingeniously  contrived  to  be 
guilty  of  the  rankest  tyranny,  in  every  step  taken  to  assert  the  right.”  — 
Grenville  Papers , iv.  533.  See  also  Junius,  Letter  xliv. 

2 Memoirs  of  Brass  Crosby,  1829;  Almon’s  Life  of  Wilkes;  Ann.  Reg., 
1771,  59  et  seq. ; Adolphus  Hist.  chap.  xix. 

von.  i.  26 


402 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Thus  ended  this  painful  and  embarrassing  conflict.  Its 
results  were  decisive.  The  publication  of  debates 

Reporting  _ 

henceforth  was  still  asserted  to  be  a breach  of  privilege  ; but 
permitted.  ^ 0ffence  was  committed  with  impunity.  Another 
contest  with  the  press,  supported  by  a powerful  opposition 
and  popular  sympathies,  was  out  of  the  question ; and  hence- 
forth the  proceedings  of  both  Houses  were  freely  reported. 
Parliament  as  well  as  the  public  has  since  profited  by  every 
facility  which  has  been  afforded  to  reporting.  The  suppres- 
sion of  the  names  of  the  speakers,  and  the  adoption  of  ficti- 
tious designations,  had  encouraged  reporters  to  introduce 
other  fictions  into  their  narratives ; and  to  impute  arguments 
and  language,  which  had  never  been  used,  to  characters  of 
their  own  creation. 

But  reporters  were  still  beset  with  too  many  difficulties,  to 
be  able  to  collect  accurate  accounts  of  the  debates. 
Prohibited  from  taking  notes,  they  were  obliged  to 
write  mainly  from  memory.  If  notes  were  taken  at  all,  they 
were  written  surreptitiously,  and  in  fear  of  the  Sergeant-at- 
Arms.  Nor  was  this  the  only  impediment  to  reporting.  The 
accommodation  for  strangers  was  very  limited ; and  as  no 
places  were  reserved  for  reporters,  they  were  obliged  to  wait 
upon  the  stairs,  — sometimes  for  hours,  — before  the  doors 
were  opened,  in  order  to  secure  admission.  Under  such 
restraints,  imperfections  in  the  reports  were  to  be  expected. 
However  faithfully  the  substance  of  the  debates  may  have 
been  rendered,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  language  of  the 
speakers  could  have  been  preserved ; and  it  was  probably  no 
vain  boast  of  Dr.  Johnson,  when,  to  a company  lost  in  ad- 
miration at  one  of  Mr.  Pitt’s  most  eloquent  speeches,  he 
exclaimed,  “That  speech  I wrote  in  a garret,  in  Exeter 
Street.” 1 


Its  difficul- 
ties. 


1 Sir  J.  Hawkins’s  Life  of  Dr.  Johnson.  The  editor  of  Cobbett’s  Parlia- 
mentary History  bears  testimony  to  the  general  accuracy  of  Dr.  Johnson’s 
reports,  and  discredits  the  statements  of  Sir  John  Hawkins  and  others,  who 
had  regarded  them  as  the  works  of  his  owTn  imagination.  — Prefs.  to  vols. 
xi.  and  xii. 


FREEDOM  OF  REPORTING  ESTABLISHED. 


403 


Nor  were  any  further  facilities  conceded  to  reporters,  after 
the  struggle  of  1771.  Lord  Malmesbury,  speaking  of  Mr. 
Pitt’s  speech,  23d  May,  1803,  on  the  renewal  of  hostilities 
with  France,  said : “ By  a new  arrangement  of  the  Speaker’s, 
strangers  were  excluded  till  so  late  an  hour,  that  the  news- 
paper printers  could  not  get  in,  and  of  course,  no  part  of 
Pitt’s  speech  can  be  printed.” 1 A sketch  of  this  speech, 
however,  has  been  preserved ; but  the  whole  debate  was  very 
imperfectly  reported.2  Even  so  late  as  1807,  it  was  noticed 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  a person  was  taking  notes  in  the 
gallery.3 

Another  interruption  to  which  reporting  was  still  exposed, 
was  the  frequent  and  capricious  exclusion  of  Reports  inter- 
strangers, at  the  desire  of  a single  member.  On  ^ ex“ 
the  29th  January,  1778,  seven  years  after  the  strangers, 
contest  with  the  printers,  Colonel  Luttrell  complained  of  mis- 
representation in  a newspaper ; and  said  he  should  move  the 
exclusion  of  strangers,  in  order  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
such  a practice  ; upon  which  Mr.  Fox  made  this  remarkable 
observation  : “ He  was  convinced  the  true  and  only  method 
of  preventing  misrepresentation  was  by  throwing  open  the 
gallery,  and  making  the  debates  and  decisions  of  the  House 
as  public  as  possible.  There  was  less  danger  of  misrepre- 
sentation in  a full  company  than  a thin  one,  as  there  would 
be  a greater  number  of  persons  to  give  evidence  against  the 
misrepresentation.”  4 

1 Corresp.  and  Diary,  iv.  262. 

2 Pari.  Hist,  xxxvi.  1386. 

3 Court  and  Cabinets  of  George  III.  iv.  150 ; not  mentioned  in  the  Pari. 
Debates. 

4 Pari.  Hist.  xix.  647.  A few  days  afterwards  strangers  were  ordered  to 
withdraw.  This  order  was  enforced  against  the  gentlemen ; but  the  ladies, 
who  were  present  in  unusual  numbers,  were  permitted  to  remain.  Gover- 
nor Johnstone,  however,  remonstrated  upon  the  indulgence  shown  to  them, 
and  they  were  also  directed  to  withdraw.  But  they  showed  no  disposition 
to,  obey  this  ungracious  order,  and  business  was  interrupted  for  nearly  two 
hours,  before  their  exclusion  was  accomplished.  Among  the  number  were 
the  Duchess  of  Devonshire,  and  Lady  Norton.  The  contumacy  of  the  ladies 


404 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


On  the  14th  June,  1798,  the  debate  on  Mr.  Sheridan’s 
motion  for  a committee  on  the  state  of  Ireland,  was  lost  to 
the  public,  by  the  exclusion  of  strangers.1  In  1810,  Mr. 
Yorke  enforced  the  exclusion  of  strangers  during  the  in- 
quiries, at  the  bar,  into  the  expedition  to  the  Scheldt ; when 
Mr.  Sheridan  vainly  attempted  to  obtain  a modification  of 
the  rule,  which  vested  in  a single  member,  the  power  of  ex- 
cluding the  public.2  And  on  some  later  occasions,  the  re- 
ports of  the  debates  in  both  Houses  have  been  interrupted 
from  the  same  cause.3 

But  when  the  fear  of  punishment  was  abated,  the  reports 
became  more  systematic  ; and  were  improved  in  character 
and  copiousness.  There  were  still  delays,  and  other  short- 
comings : but  mainly  by  the  enterprise  and  ability  of  Almon, 
Woodfall,  and  Perry,  the  system  of  reporting  and  printing 
the  debates  gradually  attained  its  present  marvellous  rapidity 
and  completeness.  And  what  a revolution  has  it  accom- 
plished ! 

The  entire  people  are  now  present,  as  it  were,  and  assist 
„ . in  the  deliberations  of  Parliament.  An  orator  ad- 

Political  re- 
sults of  re-  dresses  not  only  the  assembly  of  which  he  is  a 

member;  but,  through  them,  the  civilized  world. 
Publicity  has  become  one  of  the  most  important  instruments 
of  parliamentary  government.  The  people  are  taken  into 
counsel  by  Parliament,  and  concur  in  approving  or  condemn- 
ing the  laws,  which  are  there  proposed ; and  thus  the  doc- 
trine of  Hooker  is  verified  to  the  very  letter  : “ Laws  they 

on  this  occasion  unhappily  led  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  privilege,  which 
they  had  long  enjoyed,  of  being  present  at  the  debates  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. 

Feb.  2d,  1778.  London  Chronicle,  cited  in  note  to  Pari.  Hist.  vol.  xix. 
p.  673.  Hatsell,  Prec.  ii.  181,  n.  See  also  Grey’s  Deb.  iii.  222.  Pari.  Hist, 
xix.  674,  n. 

1 Pari.  Hist,  xxxiii.  1487. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.  xv.  325. 

8 Even  so  late  as  1849  the  doors  of  the  House  of  Commons  were  closed 
against  strangers  for  nearly  two  hours;  and  no  report  of  the  debate  during 
that  time  was  published. 


FACILITIES  FOR  REPORTING. 


405 


are  not,  which  public  approbation  hath  not  made  so.”  While 
publicity  secures  the  ready  acceptance  of  good  laws  by  the 
people,  the  passing  of  bad  laws,  of  which  the  people  disap- 
prove, is  beyond  the  power  of  any  minister.  Long  before  a 
measure  can  be  adopted  by  the  legislature,  it  has  been  ap- 
proved or  condemned  by  the  public  voice ; and  living  and 
acting  in  public,  Parliament,  under  a free  representation,  has 
become  as  sensitive  to  public  opinion,  as  a barometer  to  at- 
mospheric pressure.  Such  being  the  direct  influence  of  the 
people  over  the  deliberations  of  Parliament,  they  must  share, 
with  that  body,  the  responsibility  of  legislation.  They  have 
permitted  laws  to  be  passed,  — they  have  accepted  and  ap- 
proved them  ; and  they  will  not  afterwards  allow  them  to 
be  disturbed.  Hence  the  remarkable  permanence  of  every 
legislative  settlement.  There  has  been  no  retrogression  in 
our  laws  or  policy.  The  people,  — - if  slow  to  perceive  the 
value  of  new  principles,  — hold  fast  to  them  when  once  ac- 
knowledged, as  to  a national  faith.1  No  circumstance  in  the 
history  of  our  country,  — not  even  parliamentary  reform,  — 
has  done  more  for  freedom  and  good  government,  than  the 
unfettered  liberty  of  reporting.  And  of  all  the  services 
which  the  press  has  rendered  to  free  institutions,  none  has 
been  greater  than  its  bold  defiance  of  parliamentary  privi- 
lege, while  laboring  for  the  interests  of  the  people. 

Reporting,  instead  of  being  resented  by  Parliament,  is 
now  encouraged  as  one  of  the  main  sources  of  its  „ 

° # Reporting . 

influence ; while  the  people  justly  esteem  it,  as  the  still  a breach 
surest  safeguard  of  liberty.  Yet  such  is  the  te-  °f  privliege' 
nacity  with  which  ancient  customs  are  observed,  — long  after 
their  uses  have  ceased  to  be  recognized,  — that  the  privilege 
itself  has  never  been  relinquished.  Its  maintenance,  how- 

1 Though  equal  publicity  prevails  in  the  United  States,  their  legislation 
is  more  sudden  and  impulsive,  and  remarkable,  therefore,  for  its  instability. 
— De  Tocqueville , Democratic  en  Amerique , i.  242  (13th  ed.).  See  also  an 
interesting  essay  of  Sismondi,  “ De  la  Deliberation  Nationale : ” Etudes  sur 
les  Constitutions  des  Peuples  Libres , 131. 


406 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ever,  is  little  more  than  a harmless  anomaly.  Though  it  is 
still  a breach  of  privilege  to  publish  the  debates,  parliamen- 
tary censure  is  reserved  for  wilful  misrepresentation;  and 
even  this  offence  is  now  scarcely  known.  The  extraordinary 
ability,  candor,  and  good  faith  of  the  modern  school  of  re- 
porters, have  left  nothing  for  Parliament  or  the  public  to 
desire. 

The  fire  which  destroyed  both  Houses  of  Parliament  in 
Galleries  for  1834,  introduced  a new  era  in  reporting.  Though 
datio^o^re-"  f°r  man7  years  past,  the  reporters  of  the  daily 
porters.  press  had  enjoyed  facilities  unknown  to  their 
predecessors,  they  still  carried  on  their  difficult  labors,  in  the 
strangers’  gallery.  In  the  temporary  Houses,  separate  gal- 
leries, for  the  accommodation  of  reporters,  were  first  intro- 
duced ; and  this  significant  change  has  been  perpetuated  in 
the  present  buildings. 

In  1845  the  presence  of  strangers  in  the  galleries  and 
^ ^ other  parts  of  the  House,  not  appropriated  to 

strangers  members,  was  for  the  first  time  recognized  by 
recognized.  orders  of  the  House  of  Commons  ; yet  this 

tardy  recognition  of  their  presence,  did  not  supersede  the  an- 
cient rule  by  which  they  could  be  excluded  on  the  word  of  a 
single  member. 

A further  change  was  still  wanting  to  complete  the  public- 
Pubiicationof  ity  of  parliamentary  proceedings,  and  the  respon- 
division  lists,  gibiiity  0f  members.  The  conduct  of  members 
who  took  part  in  the  debates,  — until  recently  a very  small 
number,  — was  now  known ; but  the  conduct  of  the  great 
majority  who  were  silent,  was  still  a secret.  Who  were 
present,  — how  they  voted,  — and  what  members  composed 
the  majority,  — and  therefore  the  ruling  body,  — could  not 
be  ascertained.  On  questions  of  unusual  interest,  it  was  cus- 
tomary for  the  minority  to  secure  the  publication  of  their 
own  names ; but  it  was  on  very  rare  occasions  indeed,  that  a 
list  of  the  majority  could  also  be  obtained.1  In  either  case 

1 In  1696,  the  Commons  declared  the  printing  the  names  of  the  minority, 


PUBLICATION  OF  DIVISION  LISTS. 


407 


the  publication  was  due  to  the  exertions  of  individual  mem- 
bers. The  House  itself  took  no  cognizance  of  names ; but 
concerned  itself  merely  with  the  numbers.  The  grave  con- 
stitutional objections  to  this  form  of  voting,  had  not  escaped 
the  notice  of  parliamentary  reformers.  Lord  John  Russell, 
in  his  speech  on  parliamentary  reform  in  1819,  said  : — “We 
are  often  told  that  the  publication  of  the  debates  is  a correc- 
tive for  any  defect  in  the  composition  of  this  House.  But 
to  these  men,  such  an  argument  can  by  no  means  apply ; 
the  only  part  they  take  in  the  affairs  of  this  House,  is  to  vote 
in  the  majority ; and  it  is  well  known  that  the  names  of  the 
majority  are  scarcely  ever  published.  Such  members  are 
unlimited  kings,  — bound  by  no  rule  in  the  exercise  of  their 
power,  — fearing  nothing  from  public  censure,  in  the  pursuit 
of  selfish  objects,  — not  even  influenced  by  the  love  of  praise 
and  historical  fame,  which  affects  the  most  despotic  sov- 
ereigns; but  making  laws,  voting  money,  imposing  taxes, 
sanctioning  wars,  with  all  the  plenitude  of  power,  and  all 
the  protection  of  obscurity;  having  nothing  to  deter  them 
but  the  reproach  of  conscience,  and  everything  to  tempt  the 
indulgence  of  avarice  and  ambition.”  1 

It  was  not,  however,  until  1886,  — four  years  after  the 
passing  of  the  reform  act,  — that  the  House  of  Commons 
adopted  the  wise  and  popular  plan  of  recording  the  votes  of 
every  member ; and  publishing  them,  day  by  day,  as  part  of 
the  proceedings  of  the  House.  So  stringent  a test  had 
never  been  applied  to  the  conduct  of  members ; and  if  free 
constituencies  have  since  failed  in  their  duty  of  sending  able 
and  conscientious  representatives,  the  fault  has  been  entirely 
their  own. 

The  Commons  have  since  extended  the  principle  of  pub- 


a breach  of  privilege,  as  “destructive  of  the  freedom  and  liberties  of  Parlia- 
ment.” — Com.  Journ.  xi.  572.  In  1782,  the  Opposition  published  division 
lists,  the  ministerial  members  appearing  in  red  letters,  and  the  minority  in 
black.  — Wraxall  Mem.  ii.  591. 

1 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  xli.  1097. 


408 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


licity  still  further.  The  admission  of  strangers  to  debates  had 
strangers  ^een  highly  prized  ; but  the  necessity  of  excluding 
present  at  di-  them  during  a division,  had  never  been  doubted.1 

Yet  in  1853  it  was  shown  by  Mr.  Muntz 2 that 
they  might  be  permitted  to  remain  in  the  galleries,  with- 
out any  embarrassment  to  the  tellers ; and  they  have  since 
looked  down  upon  the  busy  scene,  and  shared  in  the  excite- 
ment of  the  declaration  of  the  numbers. 

In  these  important  changes,  the  Commons  have  also  been 
Divisions  in  followed  by  the  Lords.  Since  1857,  their  Lord- 
the  Lords.  shipS  have  published  their  division  lists  daily  ; and 
during  a division,  strangers  are  permitted  to  remain  in  the 
galleries  and  in  the  space  within  the  rails  of  the  throne.3 

In  a minor,  yet  not  unimportant  change,  the  personal  re- 
Names  of  sponsibility  of  members,  as  well  to  the  House  as 

members  on  to  the  public,  has  been  extended.  In  the  Corn- 

committees.  • ^ oorv  i n i -| 

mons,  since  1839,  the  name  oi  every  member  ad- 
dressing questions  to  witnesses  before  select  committees,  has 
been  published  with  the  minutes  of  evidence ; and  in  1852 
the  same  practice  was  adopted  by  the  Lords.  It  displays 
the  intelligence,  the  knowledge,  and  the  candor  of  the  ques- 
tioners ; or  their  obtuseness,  ignorance,  and  prejudice.  It 
exhibits  them  seeking  for  truth,  or  obstinately  persisting  in 
error.  Their  presence  at  each  sitting  of  the  committee,  and 
their  votes  upon  every  question,  are  also  recorded  and  pub- 
lished in  the  minutes  of  proceedings. 

One  other  concession  to  the  principle  of  unrestricted 
Publication  publicity,  must  not  be  overlooked.  One  of  the 
tary^eports11"  results  of  increasing  activity  and  vigilance  in  the 
and  papers.  Legislature,  has  been  the  collection  of  information, 
from  all  sources,  on  which  to  found  its  laws.  Financial  and 
statistical  accounts,  — reports  and  papers  upon  every  question 
of  foreign  and  domestic  policy,  — have  been  multiplied  in  so 

1 In  1849  a committee  reported  that  their  exclusion  was  necessary. 

2 Report  of  Select  Committee  on  Divisions,  1853. 

8 Resolutions,  March  10th,  1857. 


FREEDOM  OF  CRITICISMS  SUFFERED. 


409 


remarkable  a manner,  since  the  union  with  Ireland,  that  it 
excites  surprise  how  Parliament  affected  to  legislate,  in 
earlier  times,  without  such  information.  These  documents 
were  distributed  to  all  members  of  the  Legislature  ; and,  by 
their  favor,  were  also  accessible  to  the  public.  In  1835  the 
Commons  took  a further  step  in  the  encouragement  of  pub- 
licity, by  directing  all  their  papers  to  be  freely  sold,  at  a 
cheap  rate.1  The  public  have  since  had  the  same  means  of 
information,  upon  all  legislative  questions,  as  the  House  it- 
self. Community  of  knowledge,  as  well  as  community  of 
discussion,  has  been  established.  If  comments  are  justly 
made  upon  the  extravagance  of  parliamentary  printing,  — 
if  voluminous  “ blue  books  ” are  too  often  a fair  object  of 
ridicule,  — yet  the  information  they  afford  is  for  the  public ; 
and  the  extent  and  variety  of  the  documents  printed,  attest 
at  once  the  activity  of  members,  and  the  keen  interest  taken 
by  the  people,  in  the  business  of  legislation. 

While  the  utmost  publicity  has  thus  been  gradually  ex- 
tended to  all  parliamentary  proceedings,  a greater  Freedom  of 
freedom  has  been  permitted  to  the  press,  in  criti-  ^po^Pariia- 
cizing  the  conduct  of  Parliament.  Relying  upon  ment' 
the  candor  of  public  opinion  for  a justification  of  its  conduct, 
Parliament  has  been  superior  to  the  irritable  sensitiveness, 
which  formerly  resented  a free  discussion  of  its  proceedings. 
Rarely  has  either  House  thought  fit,  of  late  years,  to  re- 
strain by  punishment,  even  the  severest  censures  upon  its 
own  debates  and  proceedings.  When  gross  libels  have  been 
published  upon  the  House  itself,  or  any  of  its  members,  the 
House  has  occasionally  thought  it  necessary  to  vindicate  its 
honor,  by  the  commitment  of  the  offenders  to  custody.  But 
it  has  rightly  distinguished  between  libels  upon  character 
and  motives,  — and  comments,  however  severe,  upon  politi- 
cal conduct.  In  1810,  Mr.  Gale  Jones  was  committed  to 
Newgate,  for  publishing  an  offensive  placard  announcing  for 
discussion  in  a debating  society  the  conduct  of  two  members, 
1 Reports  on  Printed  Papers,  1835. 


410 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Mr.  G.  Yorke  and  Mr.  Windham.  Sir  Francis  Burdett 
was  sent  to  the  Tower,  for  publishing  an  address  to  his  con- 
stituents, denouncing  this  act  of  the  House,  and  denying  its 
right  of  commitment.  Twenty  years  later,  both  these  of- 
fences would  probably  have  been  disregarded,  or  visited 
with  censure  only.  Again,  in  1819,  Mr.  Hobhouse  was 
committed  to  Newgate  for  violent,  if  not  seditious,  language 
in  a pamphlet.  A few  years  afterwards,  such  an  offence,  if 
noticed  at  all,  would  have  been  remitted  to  the  Attorney- 
General,  and  the  Court  of  Queen’s  Bench.  In  1838,  Mr. 
O’Connell,  for  a much  grosser  libel  than  any  of  these,  was 
only  reprimanded  in  his  place,  by  the  Speaker.  The  for- 
bearance of  both  Houses  has  maintained  their  dignity,  and 
commanded  public  respect.  Nor  has  it  been  without  other 
good  results  ; for,  however  free  the  commentaries  of  news- 
papers, — they  have  rarely  been  disgraced  by  the  vulgar 
scurrilities  which  marked  the  age  of  Wilkes  and  Junius, 
when  Parliament  was  still  wielding  the  rod  of  privilege  over 
the  press.  Universal  freedom  of  discussion  has  become  the 
law  of  our  political  system ; and  the  familiar  use  of  the 
privilege,  has  gradually  corrected  its  abuses. 

The  relations  of  Parliament  with  the  people  have  also 
e i been  drawn  closer,  by  the  extended  use  of  the 

tions  to  Par-  popular  right  of  petitioning  for  redress  of  griev- 
ances. Though  this  right  has  existed  from  the 
earliest  times,  it  had  been,  practically,  restricted  for  many 
centuries,  to  petitions  for  the  redress  of  personal  and 
local  grievances ; and  the  remedies  sought  by  petitioners, 
were  such  as  Courts  of  Equity,  and  private  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment have  since  been  accustomed  to  provide.  The  civil 
war  of  Charles  I.  encouraged  a more  active  exercise  of  the 
right  of  petitioning.  Numerous  petitions  of  a political  char- 
acter, and  signed  by  large  bodies  of  people,  were  addressed 
to  the  Long  Parliament.1  Freedom  of  opinion,  however, 

i Clarendon,  Rebell.  (Oxford  Ed.,  1826),  i.  357;  ii.  166,  206,  207,  222;  v. 
460;  vi.  406. 


PETITIONS. 


411 


was  little  tolerated  by  that  assembly.  The  supporters  of 
their  cause,  were  thanked  and  encouraged : its  incautious 
opponents,  if  they  ventured  to  petition,  were  punished  as 
delinquents.1  Still  it  was  during  this  period  of  revolution, 
that  the  practice  of  addressing  Parliament  upon  general 
political  questions  had  its  rise.  After  the  Restoration,  peti- 
tions were  again  discouraged.  For  long  periods,  indeed, 
during  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  the  discontinuance  of  Par- 
liaments effectually  suppressed  them  ; and  the  collecting  of 
signatures  to  petitions  and  addresses  to  the  king,  or  either 
House  of  Parliament,  for  alteration  of  matters  established 
by  law,  in  church  or  state,  was  restrained  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment.2 

Nor  does  the  Revolution  appear  to  have  extended  the 
free  use  of  petitions.  In  the  next  ten  years,  pe-  Rarely  poiiti- 
titions  in  some  numbers  were  presented,  — chiefly  cal' 
from  persons  interested,  — relative  to  the  African  Company, 
— the  scarcity  and  depreciation  of  the  coinage,  — the  duties 
on  leather,  — and  the  woollen  trade ; but  very  few  of  a 
general  political  character.  Freedom  of  opinion  was  not 
tolerated.  In  1690,  a petition  from  the  city  of  London, 
hinting  at  a repeal  of  the  Test  Act,  so  far  as  it  affected 
Protestant  Dissenters,  could  hardly  obtain  a reading  ; 3 and 
in  1701,  the  Commons  imprisoned  five  of  the  Kentish  pe- 
titioners, until  the  end  of  the  session,  for  praying  that  the 
loyal  addresses  of  the  House  might  be  turned  into  bills  of 
supply.4  During  the  reigns  of  Queen  Anne,  and  the  first 
two  Georges,  petitions  continued  to  pray  for  special  relief ; 
but  rarely  interposed  in  questions  of  general  legislation. 
Even  the  ten  first  turbulent  years  of  George  III.’s  reign, 
failed  to  develop  the  agency  of  petitions,  among  other  de- 
vices of  agitation.  So  little  indulgence  did  Parliament  then 

1 Ibid.  ii.  221,  348 ; Com.  Journ.  v.  354,  367,  368 ; Rushworth  Coll.  v. 
462,  487. 

2 13  Chas.  II.  c.  5.  Petitions  to  the  King  for  the  assembling  of  Parlia- 
ment were  discountenanced  in  1679  by  proclamation  (Dec.  12th). 

3 Pari.  Hist.  v.  359. 

4 Somers’s  Tracts,  xi.  242;  Pari.  Hist.  v.  1255;  Ibid.  App.  xvii.  xviii. 


412 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


show  to  petitions,  that  if  they  expressed  opinions  of  which 
the  majority  disapproved,  the  right  of  the  subject  did  not 
protect  them  from  summary  rejection.  In  1772,  a most 
temperate  petition,  praying  for  relief  from  subscription  to  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  was  rejected  by  the  Commons,  by  a 
large  majority.1 

It  was  not  until  1779,  that  an  extensive  organization  to 
promote  measures  of  economical  and  parliamen- 

Commence-  L . x 

ment  of  the  tary  reform,  called  into  activity  a general  system 

tem  of  peti-  ot  petitioning,  — commencing  with  the  freehold- 
ers of  Yorkshire,  and  extending  to  many  of  the 
most  important  counties  and  cities  in  the  kingdom.2  This 
may  be  regarded  as  the  origin  of  the  modern  system  of 
petitioning,  by  which  public  measures,  and  matters  of  general 
policy,  have  been  pressed  upon  the  attention*  of  Parliament. 
Corresponding  committees  being  established  in  various  parts 
of  the  country,  were  associated  for  the  purpose  of  effecting 
a common  object,  by  means  of  petitions,  to  be  followed  by 
concerted  motions  made  in  Parliament.  An  organization 
which  has  since  been  so  often  used  with  success,  was  now 
first  introduced  into  our  political  system.3  But  as  yet  the 
number  of  petitions  was  comparatively  small ; and  bore 
little  proportion  to  the  vast  accumulations  of  later  times. 
Notwithstanding  the  elaborate  system  of  association  and 
correspondence  established,  there  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  more  than  forty  petitions ; 4 but  many  of  these  were 
very  numerously  signed.  The  Yorkshire  petition  was  sub- 

1 By  217  to  71. 

2 Adolphus,  iii.  94,  113;  Remembrancer,  vol.  ix.;  Wyvil’s  Political  Pa- 
pers, i.  1-296;  Wraxall’s  Mem.  292. 

3 Mr.  Hallam,  in  a valuable  note  to  his  Constitutional  History,  vol.  iii.  p. 
264,  to  which  I am  much  indebted,  says  that  “ the  great  multiplication  of 
petitions  wholly  unconnected  with  particular  interests  cannot,  I believe,  be 
traced  higher  than  those  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  1787 ; though 
a few  were  presented  for  reform  about  the  end  of  the  American  War,  which 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  rejected  with  indignation  at  any  earlier  stage 
of  our  constitution.”  I have  assigned  the  somewhat  earlier  period  of  1779, 
as  the  origin  of  the  modern  system  of  petitioning. 

4 Pari.  Hist.  xxi.  339;  Ann.  Reg.  1780,  p.  165. 


PETITIONS. 


413 


scribed  by  upwards  of  eight  thousand  freeholders ; 1 the 
Westminster  petition,  by  five  thousand  electors.2  The  meet- 
ings at  which  they  were  agreed  to,  awakened  the  public  in- 
terest in  questions  of  reform,  to  an  extraordinary  degree, 
which  was  still  further  increased  by  the  debates  in  Parlia- 
ment, on  their  presentation.  At  the  same  time,  Lord  George 
Gordon  and  his  fanatical  associates  were  engaged  in  prepar- 
ing petitions  against  the  Roman  Catholics.  To  one  of  these, 
no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  signatures 
were  annexed.3  But  not  satisfied  with  the  influence  of  pe- 
titions so  numerously  signed,  the  dangerous  fanatic  who  had 
collected  them,  sought  to  intimidate  Parliament  by  the  per- 
sonal attendance  of  the  petitioners ; and  his  ill-advised  con- 
duct resulted  in  riots,  conflagrations,  and  bloodshed,  which 
nearly  cost  their  mischievous  originator  his  head. 

In  1782,  there  were  about  fifty  petitions  praying  for  re- 
form in  the  representation  of  the  Commons  in  its  deveiop- 
Parliament ; and  also  a considerable  number  in  ment* 
subsequent  years.  The  great  movement  for  the  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade  soon  followed.  The  first  petition  against 
that  infamous  traffic,  was  presented  from  the  Quakers  in 
1782; 4 and  was  not  supported  by  other  petitions  for  some 
years.  But  in  the  mean  time,  an  extensive  association  had 
instructed  the  people  in  the  enormities  of  the  slave-trade, 
and  aroused  the  popular  sympathies  in  favor  of  the  African 
negro.  In  1787  and  1788,  a greater  number  of  petitions 
were  presented  for  this  benevolent  object,  than  had  ever 
been  addressed  to  Parliament,  upon  any  other  political  ques- 
tion. There  were  upwards  of  a hundred  petitions,  numer- 
ously signed,  and  from  influential  places.5  Never  yet  had 
the  direct  influence  of  petitions  upon  the  deliberations  of 

1 Speech  of  Sir  George  Savile ; Pari.  Hist.  xx.  1374. 

2 Speech  of  Mr.  Fox ; Ibid,  xx i.  287. 

3 Ann.  Reg.  1780,  p.  259. 

4 June  17th,  1782;  Com.  Journ.  xxxix.  487;  Adolphus,  Hist.  iv.  301. 

5 Com.  Journ.  xliii.  159  ei  seq.]  Adolphus,  Hist.  iv.  306. 


414 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Parliament,  been  so  remarkably  exemplified.  The  question 
of  the  slave-trade  was  immediately  considered  by  the  gov- 
ernment, by  the  Privy  Council,  and  by  Parliament ; and 
remedial  measures  were  passed,  which  ultimately  led  to  its 
prohibition.  This  consummation  was  indeed  postponed  for 
several  years,  and  was  not  accomplished  without  many  strug- 
gles ; but  the  influence  of  petitions,  and  of  the  organization 
by  which  they  were  produced,  was  marked  throughout  the 
contest1  The  king  and  Mr.  Pitt  appear,  from  the  first,  to 
have  regarded  with  disfavor  this  agitation  for  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade,  by  means  of  addresses  and  petitions,  as 
being  likely  to  establish  a precedent  for  forcing  the  adoption 
of  other  measures,  less  unobjectionable.2 

Notwithstanding  this  recognition  of  the  constitutional  right 
of  addressing  Parliament  upon  public  questions,  the  growth 
of  petitions  was  not  yet  materially  advanced.  Throughout 
the  reign  of  George  III.  their  numbers,  upon  the  most  inter- 
esting questions,  were  still  reckoned  by  hundreds  only.3  As 
yet,  it  was  sought  to  express  the  sentiments  of  influential 
classes  only ; and  a few  select  petitions  from  the  principal 
counties  and  cities,  — drawn  with  great  ability,  and  signed 
by  leading  men,  — characterized  this  period  of  the  history 
of  petitions.  Even  in  1816  there  were  little  more  than 
four  hundred  petitions  against  the  continuance  of  the  Prop- 
erty Tax,  notwithstanding  the  strong  public  feeling  against 
it. 

It  was  not  until  the  latter  part  of  the  succeeding  reign, 
that  petitioning  attained  that  development,  by  which  it  has 

1 Mr.  Fox,  writing  to  Dr.  Wakefield,  April  28th,  1801,  said:  “ With  regard 
to  the  slave-trade,  I conceive  the  great  numbers  which  ha»ve  voted  with  us, 
sometimes  amounting  to  a majority,  have  been  principally  owing  to  peti- 
tions.” — Memorials  of  Fox , iv.  429. 

2 Malmesbury  Corresp.  ii.  430. 

8 In  1813,  there  were  200  in  favor  of  Roman  Catholic  claims,  and  about 
700  for  promulgating  the  Christian  religion  in  India:  in  1814,  about  150  on 
the  corn  laws,  and  nearly  1000  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade:  in  1817 
and  181 8,  upwards  of  500  petitions  for  reform  in  Parliament. 


PETITIONS. 


415 


since  been  distinguished.  From  that  period  it  has  been  the 
custom  to  influence  the  judgment  of  Parliament, 

11  1 . , , T . 1 Petitions 

not  so  much  by  the  weight  and  political  con-  from  religious 
sideration  of  the  petitioners,  as  by  their  num- 
bers. Religious  bodies,  — especially  of  Dissenting  commun- 
ions, — had  already  contributed  the  greatest  number  of 
petitions ; and  they  have  since  been  foremost  in  availing 
themselves  of  the  rights  of  petitioners.  In  1824  an  agita- 
tion was  commenced,  mainly  by  means  of  petitions,  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  ; and  from  that  period  until  1833,  when 
the  Emancipation  Act  was  passed,  little  less  than  twenty 
thousand  petitions  were  presented:  in  1833  alone,  nearly 
seven  thousand  were  laid  before  the  House  of  Commons. 
Upon  many  other  subjects,  petitions  were  now  numbered  by 
thousands,  instead  of  hundreds.  In  1827  and  1828,  the  re- 
peal of  the  Corporation  and  Test  Acts  was  urged  by  up- 
wards of  five  thousand  petitions.  Between  1825  and  1829, 
there  were  above  six  thousand  petitions  in  favor  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  claims,  and  nearly  nine  thousand  against  them. 
Other  questions  affecting  the  Church  and  Dissenters,  — the 
Maynooth  grant,  church  rates,  and  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath,  have  since  called  them  forth,  in  still  greater  num- 
bers.1 On  a single  day,  in  1860,  nearly  four  thousand  peti- 
tions were  presented,  on  the  question  of  church  rates.2 

1 In  1834  there  were  upwards  of  2,000  petitions  in  support  of  the  Church 
Establishment,  and  2,400  for  relief  of  Dissenters.  In  1837  there  were  about 
10,000  petitions  relating  to  church  rates.  Between  1833  and  1837,  5,OQO 
petitions  were  presented  for  the  better  observance  of  the  Lord’s  Daj7.  In 
1845,  10,253  petitions,  with  1,288,742  signatures,  were  presented  against  the 
grant  to  Maynooth  College.  In  1850,  4,475  petitions,  with  656,919  signatures, 
were  presented  against  Sunday  labor  in  the  Post-office.  In  1851,  4,144  peti- 
tions, with  1,016,657  signatures,  were  presented  for  repelling  encroachments 
of  the  Church  of  Rome;  and  2,151  petitions,  with  948,081  signatures,  against 
the  Ecclesiastical  Titles  Bill.  In  1856,  4,999  petitions,  with  629,926  signa- 
tures, were  presented  against  opening  the  British  Museum  on  Sundays; 
and  in  1860,  there  were  5,575  petitions,  with  197,687  signatures,  against  the 
abolition  of  church  rates;  and  5,538  petitions,  with  610,877  signatures,  in 
favor  of  their  abolition. 

2 March  28th,  1860. 


416 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


The  people  have  also  expressed  their  opinions  upon  all 
_ the  great  political  measures  of  the  last  thirty 

ry  increase  of  years,  by  prodigious  numbers  of  petitions  ; 1 and 
these  petitions  have  been  freely  received,  how- 
ever distasteful  their  opinions,  — however  strong  their  lan- 
guage. Disrespect  and  menace  have  not  been  suffered ; but 
the  wise  and  tolerant  spirit  of  the  age,  has  recognized  un- 
bounded liberty  of  opinion. 

This  general  use  of  petitions  had  been  originally  de- 
Abuses  of  pe-  veloped  by  associations  ; and  in  its  progress,  ac- 
titiomng.  tive  organization  has  ever  since  been  resorted  to, 
for  bringing  its  great  influence  to  bear  upon  Parliament. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  the  manner  in  which  petitioning  has 
been  systematized,  has  discredited  the  right  on  which  it  is 
founded,  and  the  questions  it  has  sought  to  advance.  Peti- 
tions in  thousands  — using  the  same  language,  — inscribed 
in  the  same  handwriting,  and  on  the  same  description  of 
paper,  — and  signed  by  fabulous  numbers, — have  marked 
the  activity  of  agents,  rather  than  the  unanimity  of  petition- 
ers ; and,  instead  of  being  received  as  the  expression  of 
public  opinion,  have  been  reprobated  as  an  abuse  of  a popu- 
lar privilege.  In  some  cases  the  unscrupulous  zeal  of  agents 
has  even  led  them  to  resort  to  forgery  and  other  frauds,  for 
the  multiplication  of  signatures.2 

1 In  1846  there  were  1,958  petitions,  with  145,855  signatures,  against  the 
repeal  of  the  corn  laws;  and  467  petitions,  with  1,414,303  signatures,  in  fa- 
vor of  repeal.  In  1848  there  were  577  petitions,  with  2,018,080  signatures, 
praying  for  universal  suffrage.  In  the  five  years  ending  1843,  94,000  peti- 
tions were  received  by  the  House  of  Commons ; in  the  five  years  ending 
1848,  66,501;  in  the  five  years  ending  1853,  54,908;  and  in  the  five  years 
ending  1858,  47,669.  In  1860,  24,279  petitions  were  received,  being  a 
greater  number  than  in  any  previous  year  except  1843. 

2 Such  practices  appear  to  have  been  coeval  with  agitation  by  means  of 
petitions.  Lord  Clarendon  states  that  in  1640,  “when  a multitude  of  hands 
was  procured,  the  petition  itself  was  cut  off,  and  a new  one  framed  suitable 
to  the  design  in  hand,  and  annexed  to  the  long  list  of  names,  which  were 
subscribed  to  the  former.  By  this  means  many  men  found  their  hands  sub- 
scribed to  petitions  of  which  they  before  had  never  heard.”  — Hist,  of  Rebel- 
lion, ii.  357. 


PETITIONS. 


417 


While  the  number  of  petitions  was  thus  increasing,  their 
influence  was  further  extended,  by  the  discussions  Debates  on 
to  which  their  presentation  gave  rise.  The  argu-  ^tSoiT?e- 
ments  of  the  petitioners,  were  repeated  and  en- strained* 
forced  in  debate.  Whatever  the  business  appointed  for  con- 
sideration, the  claims  of  petitioners  to  a prior  hearing,  were 
paramount.  Again  and  again,  were  the  same  questions  thus 
forced  upon  the  attention  of  Parliament.  A popular  question 
absorbed  all  others : it  was  forever  under  discussion.  This 
free  access  of  petitioners  to  the  inner  deliberations  of  Par- 
liament, was  a great  privilege.  It  had  long  been  enjoyed 
and  appreciated ; but  when  it  was  too  often  claimed,  its  con- 
tinuance became  incompatible  with  good  government.  After 
the  reform  act,  the  debating  of  petitions  threatened  to  become 
the  sole  business  of  the  House  of  Commons.  For  a time, 
expedients  were  tried  to  obtain  partial  relief  from  this  serious 
embarrassment ; but  at  length,  in  1839,  the  House  was  forced 
to  take  the  bold  but  necessary  step,  of  prohibiting  all  debate 
upon  the  presentation  of  petitions.1  The  reformed  Parlia- 
ment could  venture  upon  so  startling  an  invasion  of  the  right 
of  petitioning ; and  its  fearless  decision  was  not  misconstrued 
by  the  people.  Nor  has  the  just  influence  of  petitions  been 
diminished  by  this  change ; for  while  the  House  restrained 
desultory  and  intrusive  discussion,  it  devised  other  means 
for  giving  publicity,  and  extended  circulation  to  the  opinions 
of  petitioners.2  Their  voice  is  still  heard  and  respected  in 
the  consideration  of  every  public  measure  ; but  it  is  no  longer 
suffered  to  impede  the  toilsome  work  of  legislation. 

To  these  various  modes  of  subjecting  Parliament  to  the 
direct  control  of  public  opinion,  must  be  added  the  Pledgeg  of 
modern  custom  of  exacting  pledges  from  candi-  members- 
dates  at  elections.  The  general  election  of  1774  appears  to 

1 Com-  Journ.  xciv.  16;  Hansard’s  Debates,  3d  Ser.,  xlv.  356,  197. 

2 About  a thousand  petitions  are  annually  printed  in  extenso;  and  all 
petitions  are  classified  so  as  to  exhibit  the  number  of  petitions,  with  the  sig- 
natures, relating  to  every  subject. 

VOL.  I.  27 


418 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


have  been  the  first  occasion,  on  which  it  prevailed  so  far  as 
to  attract  public  notice.1  Many  popular  questions,  especially 
our  differences  with  America,  were  then  under  discussion  ; 
and  in  many  places,  tests  were  proposed  to  candidates,  by 
which  they  were  required  to  support  or  oppose  the  leading 
measures  of  the  time.  Wilkes  was  forward  in  encouraging 
a practice  so  consonant  with  his  own  political  principles  ; and 
volunteered  a test  for  himself  and  his  colleague,  Sergeant 
Glynn,  at  the  Middlesex  election.  Many  candidates  indig- 
nantly refused  the  proposed  test,  even  when  they  were  favor- 
able to  the  views,  to  which  it  wras  sought  to  pledge  them.  At 
this  period,  Mr.  Burke  explained  to  the  electors  of  Bristol, 
— with  that  philosophy  and  breadth  of  constitutional  prin- 
ciple, which  distinguished  him,  — the  relations  of  a rep- 
resentative to  his  constituents.  u His  unbiased  opinion,  his 
mature  judgment,  his  enlightened  conscience,  he  ought  not 
to  sacrifice  to  you,  to  any  man,  or  to  any  set  of  men  living. 
. . Your  representative  owes  you,  not  his  industry  only, 

but  his  judgment ; and  he  betrays,  instead  of  serving  you, 
if  he  sacrifices  it  to  your  opinion.  . . Government  and 

legislation  are  matters  of  reason  and  judgment,  and  not  of 
inclination ; and  what  sort  of  reason  is  that  in  which  the  de- 
termination precedes  the  discussion,  — in  which  one  set  of 
men  deliberate,  and  another  decide  ? . . Parliament  is 

not  a congress  of  ambassadors  from  different  and  hostile  in- 
terests ; . . but  Parliament  is  a deliberative  assembly  of 

one  nation,  with  one  interest,  — that  of  the  whole  ; where  not 
local  purposes,  not  local  prejudices,  ought  to  guide,  but  the 
general  good,  resulting  from  the  general  reason  of  the 
whole.”  2 

Since  that  time,  however,  the  relations  between  represent- 
atives and  their  constituents  have  become  more  intimate ; 
and  the  constitutional  theory  of  pledges  has  been  somewhat 
modified.  According  to  the  true  principles  of  representation, 
the  constituents  elect  a man  in  whose  character  and  general 
1 Adolphus,  Hist.  ii.  143.  2 Burke’s  Works,  iii.  18-20. 


PLEDGES  OF  MEMBERS. 


419 


political  views  they  have  confidence  ; and  their  representative 
enters  the  Legislature  a free  agent,  to  assist  in  its  delibera- 
tions, and  to  form  his  own  independent  judgment  upon  all 
public  measures.  If  the  contrary  were  universally  the  rule, 
representatives  would  become  delegates  ; and  government  by 
the  entire  body  of  the  people,  would  be  substituted  for  rep- 
resentative institutions.1  But  the  political  conditions  of  our 
own  time  have  brought  occasional  pledges  more  into  harmony 
with  the  spirit  of  the  constitution.  The  political  education 
of  the  people,  — the  publicity  of  all  parliamentary  proceed- 
ings, — and  the  free  discussions  of  the  press,  have  combined 
to  force  upon  constituencies,  the  estimation  of  measures  as 
well  as  men.  Hence  candidates  have  sought  to  recommend 
themselves  by  the  advocacy  of  popular  measures ; and  con- 
stituents have  expected  explicit  declarations  of  the  political 
faith  of  candidates.  And  how  can  it  be  contended  that  upon 
such  measures  as  catholic  emancipation,  parliamentary  reform, 
and  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws,  constituencies  were  not  en- 
titled to  know  the  opinions  of  their  members  ? Unless  the 
electors  are  to  be  deprived  of  their  voice  in  legislation,  such 
occasions  as  these  wrere  surely  fit  for  their  peculiar  vigilance 
At  a dissolution,  the  Crown  has  often  appealed  directly  to  the 
sense  of  the  people,  on  the  policy  of  great  public  measures  ; 
and  how  could  they  respond  to  that  appeal  without  satisfying 
themselves  regarding  the  opinions  and  intentions  of  the  can- 

1 There  is  force,  but  at  the  same  time  exaggeration,  in  the  opinions  of  an 
able  reviewer  upon  this  subject.  “ For  a long  time  past  we  have,  uncon- 
sciously, been  burning  the  candle  of  the  constitution  at  both  ends;  our 
electors  have  been  usurping  the  functions  of  the  House  of  Commons,  while 
the  House  of  Commons  has  been  monopolizing  those  of  the  Parliament.”  — 
Ed.  Rev.,  Oct.  1852,  No.  196,  p.  469.  Again,  p.  470:  “ In  place  of  select- 
ing men,  constituencies  pronounce  upon  measures;  in  place  of  choosing 
representatives  to  discuss  questions  and  decide  on  proposals  in  one  of  three 
coordinate  and  coequal  bodies,  the  aggregate  of  which  decree  what  shall 
be  enacted  or  done,  electors  consider  and  decree  what  shall  be  done  them- 
selves. It  is  a reaction  towards  the  old  Athenian  plan  of  direct  government 
by  the  people,  practised  before  the  principle  of  representation  was  discov- 
ered.” 


420 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


didates  ? Their  response  was  found  in  the  majority  returned 
to  the  new  Parliament,  directly  or  indirectly  pledged  to  sup- 
port their  decision.1 

But  while  the  right  of  electors  to  be  assured  of  the  politi- 
cal opinions  of  candidates  has  been  generally  admitted,  the 
first  principles  of  representative  government  are  ever  to  be 
kept  in  view.  A member,  once  elected,  is  free  to  act  upon 
his  own  convictions  and  conscience.  As  a man  of  honor,  he 
will  violate  no  engagement  which  he  may  have  thought  it 
becoming  to  accept ; but  if  he  has  a due  respect  for  his  own 
character,  and  for  the  dignity  of  his  office,  he  will  not  yield 
himself  to  the  petty  meddling  and  dictation  of  busy  knots  of 
his  constituents,  who  may  assume  to  sway  his  judgment. 

Such  being  the  multiplied  relations  of  Parliament  to  the 
Servants’  people,  let  us  inquire  how,  since  its  early  excesses 
privilege  dis-  in  the  reign  of  George  III.,  it  has  deferred  to  the 
law,  and  respected  other  jurisdictions  besides  its 
own.  The  period  signalized  by  the  ill-advised  attempts  of 
the  House  of  Commons  to  enlarge  its  powers,  and  assert  too 
tenaciously  its  own  privileges,  — was  yet  marked  by  the 
abandonment  of  some  of  its  ancient  customs  and  immunities. 
From  the  earliest  times,  the  members  of  both  Houses  had 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  freedom  from  arrest  in  all  civil  suits ; 
and  this  immunity,  — useful  and  necessary  as  regarded  them- 
selves, — had  also  extended  to  their  servants.  The  abuses 
of  this  privilege  had  long  been  notorious  ; and  repeated  at- 
tempts had  already  been  made  to  discontinue  it.  For  that 
purpose  bills  were  several  times  passed  by  the  Lords,  but 
miscarried  in  the  Commons.2  At  length,  in  1770,  a bill  was 
agreed  to  by  the  Commons,3  and  sent  up  to  the  House  of 

1 Speeches  from  the  throne,  24th  March,  1784;  27th  April,  1807;  22d 
April,  1831;  21st  March,  1857. 

2 Lord  Mansfield’s  speech.  May  9th,  1770;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  974. 

3 Walpole  says:  “ The  bill  passed  easily  through  the  Commons,  many  of 
the  members  who  were  inclined  to  oppose  it,  trusting  it  would  be  rejected 
in  the  other  House.”  — Mem.  iv.  147.  But  this  is  scarcely  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  fact  that  similar  bills  had  previously  been  passed  by  the  Lords. 


PRIVILEGES  ABANDONED. 


421 


Lords.  There  it  encountered  unexpected  opposition  from 
several  peers  ; but  was  carried  by  the  powerful  advocacy  of 
Lord  Mansfield.1  Nor  was  this  the  only  privilege  restrained 
by  this  useful  Act.  Members  and  their  servants  had  for- 
merly enjoyed  immunity  from  the  distress  of  their  goods,  and 
from  all  civil  suits,  during  the  periods  of  privilege.  Such 
monstrous  privileges  had  been  flagitiously  abused ; and  few 
passages  in  parliamentary  history  are  more  discreditable 
than  the  frivolous  pretexts  under  which  protections  were 
claimed  by  members  of  both  Houses,  and  their  servants. 
These  abuses  had  already  been  partially  restrained  by  sev- 
eral statutes  ; 2 but  it  was  reserved  for  this  Act,  to  leave  the 
course  of  justice  entirely  free,  and  to  afford  no  protection  to 
members,  but  that  of  their  persons  from  arrest. 

This  same  period  witnessed  the  renunciation  of  an  offen- 
sive custom,  by  which  prisoners  appeared  before  p . 
either  House  to  receive  judgment,  kneeling  at  the  kneeling  at 
bar.  Submission  so  abject,  while  it  degraded  the 
prisoner,  exhibited  privilege  as  odious,  rather  than  awful,  in 
the  eyes  of  a free  people.  In  the  late  reign,  the  proud  spirit 
of  Mr.  Murray  had  revolted  against  this  indignity ; and  his 
contumacy  had  been  punished  by  close  confinement  in  New- 
gate.3 But  in  1772,  when  privilege  was  most  unpopular, 
the  Commons  formally  renounced  this  opprobrious  usage,  by 
standing  order.4  The  Lords,  less  candid  in  their  proceed- 
ings, silently  discontinued  the  practice;  but,  by  fictitious 
entries  in  their  journal,  still  affected  to  maintain  it. 

Parliament,  having  relinquished  every  invidious  privilege, 
has  not  been  without  embarrassments  in  exercising  Privilege  and 
the  powers  necessary  for  maintaining  its  own  au-  the  Courts- 

1 10  Geo.  III.  c.  50. 

2 12  & 13  Will.  III.  c.  3;  2 & 3 Anne,  c.  18;  11  Geo.  II.  c.  24. 

3 Pari.  Hist.  xiv.  894;  Walpole’s  Mem.  of  Geo.  II.  i.  15.  In  1647,  David 
Jenkins,  a Royalist  Welsh  judge,  had  refused  to  kneel  before  the  Com- 
mons; and  Sir  John  Maynard,  Sir  John  Gayre,  and  others,  before  the 
Lords.  — Com.  Journ.  v.  469;  Pari.  Hist.  iii.  844,  880. 

4 March  16th,  1772;  Com.  Joum.  xxvi.  48. 


422 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


thority  and  independence,  and  which,  — if  rightly  used,  — 
are  no  restraint  upon  public  liberty.  Each  House  has  exer- 
cised a large  jurisdiction,  in  declaring  and  enforcing  its  own 
privileges.  It  administers  the  law  of  Parliament : the  courts 
administer  the  law  of  the  land ; and  where  subjects  have 
considered  themselves  aggrieved  by  one  jurisdiction,  they 
have  appealed  to  the  other.1  In  such  cases  the  appeal  has 
been  to  inferior  courts,  — to  courts  whose  judgments  may 
again  be  reviewed  by  the  High  Court  of  Parliament.  The 
courts,  — without  assuming  the  right  to  limit  the  privileges 
of  Parliament,  — have  yet  firmly  maintained  their  own  un- 
fettered jurisdiction,  to  try  all  causes  legally  brought  before 
them ; and  to  adjudge  them  according  to  the  law,  whether 
their  judgment  may  conflict  with  privilege,  as  declared  else- 
where, or  not.  A court  of  equity  or  common  law  can  stay 
actions,  by  injunction  or  prohibition  : but  neither  House  is 
able  to  interdict  a suit,  by  any  legal  process.  Hence  embar- 
rassing contests  have  arisen  between  Parliament  and  the 
courts. 

The  right  of  both  Houses  to  imprison  for  contempt,  had 
been  so  often  recognized  by  the  courts,  on  writs 

CciSB  ot  feir  # 

Francis  Bur-  of  habeas  corpus , that  it  appeared  scarcely  open  to 
further  question.  Yet,  in  1810,  Sir  Francis  Bur- 
dett  denied  the  authority  of  the  Commons,  in  his  place  in 
Parliament.  He  enforced  his  denial  in  a letter  to  his  con- 
stituents ; and  having  himself  been  adjudged  guilty  of  con- 
tempt, he  determined  to  defy  and  resist  their  power.  By  di- 
rection of  the  House,  the  Speaker  issued  his  warrant  for  the 
commitment  of  Sir  Francis  to  the  Tower.  He  disputed  its 
legality,  and  resisted  and  turned  out  the  Sergeant,  who  came 
to  execute  it : he  barred  up  his  house ; and  appealed  for  pro- 
tection to  the  Sheriffs  of  Middlesex.  The  mob  took  his  part, 
and  being  riotous,  were  dispersed  in  the  streets,  by  the  mil- 
itary. For  three  days  he  defended  himself  in  his  house, 

1 All  the  principles  and  authorities  upon  this  matter  are  collected  in  Chap. 
VI.  of  the  author’s  Treatise  on  the  Law  and  Usage  of  Parliament. 


CONFLICT  OF  PRIVILEGE  WITH  LAW. 


423 


while  the  authorities  were  consulting  as  to  the  legality  of 
breaking  into  it,  by  force.  It  was  held  that  the  Sergeant,  in 
executing  the  Speaker’s  warrant,  would  be  armed  with  all 
the  powers  of  the  law  ; and  accordingly,  on  the  third  day, 
that  officer  having  obtained  the  aid  of  a sufficient  number  of 
constables,  and  a military  force,  broke  into  the  beleaguered 
house,  and  conveyed  his  prisoner  to  the  Tower.1  The  com- 
mitment of  a popular  opponent  of  privilege  was  followed 
by  its  usual  consequences.  The  martyred  prisoner  was  an 
object  of  sympathy  and  adulation,  — the  Commons  were 
denounced  as  tyrants  and ‘oppressors. 

Overcome  by  force,  Sir  Francis  brought  actions  against 
the  Speaker  and  the  Sergeant,  in  the  Court  of  King’s  Bench, 
for  redress.  The  House  would  have  been  justified  by  prece- 
dents and  ancient  usage,  in  resisting  the  prosecution  of  these 
actions,  as  a contempt  of  its  authority ; but  instead  of  stand- 
ing upon  its  privilege,  it  directed  its  officers  to  plead,  and 
the  Attorney- General  to  defend  them.  The  authority  of  the 
House  was  fully  vindicated  by  the  court ; but  Sir  F rancis 
prosecuted  an  appeal  to  the  Exchequer  Chamber,  and  to  the 
House  of  Lords.  The  judgment  of  the  court  below  being 
affirmed,  all  conflict  between  law  and  privilege  was  averted. 
The  authority  of  the  House  had  indeed  been  questioned ; 
but  the  courts  declared  it  to  have  been  exercised  in  con- 
formity with  the  law. 

Where  the  courts  uphold  the  authority  of  the  House,  all 
is  well : but  what  if  they  deny  and  repudiate  it  ? Since  the 
memorable  cases  of  Ashby  and  White,  and  the  electors  of 
Aylesbury  in  1704,  no  such  case  had  arisen  until  1837  : 
when  the  cause  of  dispute  was  characteristic  of  the  times. 
In  the  last  century,  we  have  seen  the  Commons  contending 
for  the  inviolable  secrecy  of  all  their  proceedings  : now  they 
are  found  declaring  their  inherent  right  of  publishing  all  their 
own  papers,  for  the  information  of  the  public. 

The  circumstances  of  this  case  may  be  briefly  told.  In 
1 Ann.  Reg.  1810,  p.  344;  Hansard’s  Deb.  xvi.  257,  454,  &c. 


424 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


1836,  Messrs.  Hansard,  the  printers  of  the  House  of  Corn- 
Right  of  Com  mons5  ^aci  printed,  by  order  of  that  House,  the 
mons  to  pub-  reports  of  the  Inspectors  of  Prisons,  — in  one  of 
affectingerS  which  a book  published  by  Stockdale,  and  found 
er'  among  the  prisoners  in  Newgate,  was  described  as 
obscene  and  indecent.  After  the  session,  Stockdale  brought 
an  action  against  the  printers,  for  libel.  The  character  of 
the  book  being  proved,  a verdict  was  given  against  him,  upon 
a plea  of  justification  : but  Lord  Chief  Justice  Denman,  who 
tried  the  cause,  took  occasion  to  say  that  “ the  fact  of  the 
House  of  Commons  having  directed  Messrs.  Hansard  to  pub- 
lish all  their  parliamentary  reports,  is  no  justification  for 
them,  or  for  any  bookseller  who  publishes  a parliamentary 
report,  containing  a libel  against  any  man.”  The  assertion 
of  such  a doctrine,  was  naturally  startling  to  the  House  of 
Commons ; and  at  the  next  meeting  of  Parliament,  after  an 
inquiry  by  a committee,  the  House  declared  “That  the 
power  of  publishing  such  of  its  reports,  votes,  and  proceed- 
ings as  it  shall  deem  necessary,  or  conducive  to  the  public 
interests,  is  an  essential  incident  to  the  constitutional  func- 
tions of  Parliament,  more  especially  of  this  House,  as  the 
representative  portion  of  it.”  It  was  further  resolved,  that 
for  any  person  to  institute  a suit  in  order  to  call  its  privileges 
in  question,  or  for  any  court  to  decide  upon  matters  of  privi- 
lege, inconsistent  with  the  determination  of  either  House, 
was  a breach  of  privilege.1 

Stockdale,  however,  immediately  brought  another  action, 
Case  of  stock- to  which  the  House,  — instead  of  acting  upon  its 
date.  own  recent  resolutions,  — directed  Messrs.  Han- 

sard to  plead.  The  case  was  tried  upon  this  single  issue,  — 
whether  the  printers  were  justified  by  the  privilege  and 
order  of  the  House ; and  the  Court  of  Queen’s  Bench 
unanimously  decided  against  them. 

The  position  of  the  Commons  was  surrounded  with  diffi- 

1 Com.  Journ.  xcii.  418;  May’s  Law  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  4th  ed. 
170,  et  seq. 


CONFLICT  OF  PRIVILEGE  WITH  LAW. 


425 


culties.  Believing  the  judgment  of  the  court  to  be  errone- 
ous, the}'  might  have  sought  its  reversal  by  a writ  of  error. 
But  such  a course  was  not  compatible  with  their  dignity.  It 
was  not  the  conduct  of  their  officer  that  was  impugned ; but 
their  own  authority,  which  they  had  solemnly  asserted.  In 
pursuing  a writ  of  error,  they  might  be  obliged,  in  the  last 
resort,  to  seek  justice  from  the  House  of  Lords,  — a tribunal 
of  equal,  but  not  superior,  authority  in  matters  of  privilege ; 
and  having  already  pronounced  their  own  judgment,  such  an 
appeal  would  be  derogatory  to  their  proper  position  in  the 
state.  They  were  equally  unwilling  to  precipitate  a conflict 
with  the  courts.  Their  resolutions  had  been  set  at  defiance ; 
yet  the  damages  and  costs  were  directed  to  be  paid  ! Their 
forbearance  was  not  without  humiliation.  It  was  resolved, 
however,  that  in  case  of  any  future  action,  Messrs.  Hansard 
should  not  plead  at  all ; and  that  the  authority  of  the  House 
should  be  vindicated,  by  the  exercise  of  its  privileges. 

During  the  recess  of  1839,  another  action  was  brought ; 
and  judgment  having  gone  against  Messrs.  Hansard  by  de- 
fault, the  damages  were  assessed  in  the  Sheriff’s  Court  at 
60 01.,  and  levied  by  the  Sheriffs.  On  the  meeting  of  Par- 
liament in  1840,  the  Sheriffs  had  not  yet  paid  over  the 
money  to  the  plaintiff.  The  House  now  proceeded  with  the 
rigor  which  it  had  previously  threatened,  — but  had  for- 
borne to  exercise.  Stockdale  was  immediately  committed 
to  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  while  Mr.  Howard, 
his  solicitor,  escaped  with  a reprimand.  The  Sheriffs  wete 
directed  to  restore  the  money,  which  they  had  levied  upon 
Messrs.  Hansard.  Being  bound  by  their  duty  to  the  Court 
of  Queen’s  Bench,  they  refused  to  obey  this  order  ; and 
were  also  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Sergeant.  In 
the  hope  of  some  settlement  of  the  difficulty,  they  retained 
possession  of  the  money,  until  compelled  by  an  attachment 
from  the  Court  of  Queen’s  Bench,  to  pay  it  over  to  Stockdale. 
Much  sympathy  was  justly  excited  by  the  imprisonment  of 
these  gentlemen,  — wTho,  acting  in  strict  obedience  to  the  law 


426 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


and  the  judgment  of  the  court,  had  nevertheless  endeavored 
to  avoid  a contempt  of  the  House  of  Commons,  which,  in  the 
execution  of  their  duty,  they  were  constrained  to  commit. 
Punished  with  reluctance,  — and  without  the  least  feeling 
of  resentment,  — they  were  the  innocent  victims  of  conflict- 
ing jurisdictions. 

In  an  earlier  age  the  Commons,  relying  upon  their  own 
paramount  authority,  might  even  have  proceeded  to  commit 
the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Queen’s  Bench,  — for  which  a 
precedent  was  not  wanting  ; 1 but  happily,  the  wise  modera- 
tion of  this  age  revolted  from  so  violent  and  unseemly  an 
exercise  of  power.  Confident  in  the  justice  and  legality  of 
their  own  proceedings,  — defied  by  a low  plaintiff  in  an  un- 
worthy cause,  — and  their  deliberate  judgment  overruled  by 
an  inferior  court,  — they  yet  acted  with  as  much  temper 
and  forbearance,  as  the  inextricable  difficulties  of  their 
position  would  allow. 

Stockdale,  while  in  custody,  repeated  his  offence  by  bring- 
ing another  action.  He  and  his  attorney  were  committed  to 
Newgate ; and  Messrs.  Hansard  were  again  ordered  not  to 
plead.  Judgment  was  once  more  entered  up  against  them, 
and  another  writ  of  inquiry  issued ; when  Mr.  France, 
the  Under-Sheriff,  anxious  to  avoid  offence  to  the  House,  ob- 
tained leave  to  show  cause  before  the  court,  why  the  writ 
should  not  be  executed.  Meanwhile,  the  indefatigable  Stock- 
dale  solaced  his  imprisonment,  by  bringing  another  action ; 
for  which  his  attorney’s  son,  and  his  clerk,  Mr.  Pearce, 
were  committed. 

At  length  these  vexatious  proceedings  were  brought  to  a 

Actions  close,  by  the  passing  of  an  Act,  providing  that  all 

stayed  by  such  actions  should  be  stayed  on  the  production  of  a 
statute.  . ^ A . 

certificate  or  affidavit,  that  any  paper,  the  subject  of 
an  action,  was  printed  by  order  of  either  House  of  Parliament.2 

1 Jay  v.  Topham,  1689 ; Com.  Journ.  x.  227. 

2 3 & 4 Viet.  c.  9.  Papers  reflecting  upon  private  character  are  some- 
times printed  for  the  use  of  members  only. 


CONFLICT  OF  PRIVILEGE  WITH  LAW. 


427 


Such  an  intervention  of  the  supreme  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, two  years  before,  would  have  averted  differences 
between  concurrent  jurisdictions,  which  no  other  power  was 
competent  to  reconcile.  No  course  was  open  to  the  Com- 
mons — befitting  their  high  jurisdiction  and  dignity  — by 
which  the  obedience  of  courts  and  plaintiffs  could  be  insured : 
their  power  of  commitment  was  at  once  impotent  and  op- 
pressive : yet  they  could  not  suffer  their  authority  to  be 
wholly  defied  and  contemned.  Hence  their  proceedings 
were  inevitably  marked  by  hesitation  and  inconsistency.  In 
a case,  for  which  the  constitution  has  made  no  provision,  — 
even  the  wisdom  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  and  the  solid  learning 
of  Mr.  Sergeant  Wilde  were  unequal  to  devise  expedients, 
less  open  to  objection.1 

Another  occasion  immediately  arose  for  further  forbear- 
ance. Howard  .commenced  an  action  of  trespass  Case  of  How- 
against  the  officers  of  the  House,  who  had  taken  ard  v-  Gosset* 
him  into  custody.  As  it  was  possible  that,  in  executing  the 
Speaker’s  warrant,  they  might  have  exceeded  their  author- 
ity, the  action  was  suffered  to  take  its  course.  On  the  trial, 
it  appeared  that  they  had  remained  some  time  in  the  plain- 
tiff’s house,  after  they  had  ascertained  that  he  was  from 
home ; and  on  that  ground,  a verdict  was  obtained  against 
them  for  100Z.  Howard  brought  a second  action  against 
Sir  W.  Oosset,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  in  which  he  was  also 
successful,  on  the  ground  of  the  informality  of  the  Speaker’s 
warrant.  The  Judges,  however,  took  pains  to  show  that 
their  decision  in  no  way  impugned  the  authority  of  the 
House  itself.  The  House,  while  it  regarded  this  judgment 
as  erroneous,  could  not  but  feel  that  its  authority  had  been 
trifled  with,  in  a spirit  of  narrow  technicality,  by  an  inferior 
court.  Still  moderation  prevailed  in  its  counsels ; and,  as 
the  act  of  an  officer,  and  not  the  authority  of  the  House 
itself,  was  questioned,  it  was  determined  not  to  resist  the  ex- 

1 Proceedings  printed  by  the  Commons,  1839,(283);  Report  of  Prece- 
dents, 1837 ; Hansard’s  Deb.  1847-1849. 


428 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ecution  of  the  judgment ; but  to  test  its  legality  by  a writ 
of  error.  The  judgment  was  reversed  by  the  unanimous 
decision  of  the  Court  of  Exchequer  Chamber.  As  this 
last  judgment  was  founded  upon  broader  principles  of  law, 
than  those  adopted  by  the  court  below,  it  is  probable  that, 
in  Stockdale’s  case,  a Court  of  Error  would  have  shown 
greater  respect  to  the  privileges  of  the  Commons,  than  the 
Court  of  Queen’s  Bench  had  thought  fit  to  pay  ; and  it  is  to 
be  regretted  that  the  circumstances  were  not  such  as  to 
justify  an  appeal  to  a higher  jurisdiction. 

The  increased  power  of  the  House  of  Commons,  under  an 
improved  representation,  has  been  patent  and  in- 

increased  . 1 A 1 

power  of  the  disputable.  Responsible  to  the  people,  it  has,  at 

Commons.  _ r . f . , _ , . , r . 

the  same  time,  wielded  the  people  s strength.  No 
longer  subservient  to  the  Crown,  the  ministers,  and  the  peer- 
age, it  has  become  the  predominant  authority  in  the  state. 
But  it  is  characteristic  of  the  British  constitution,  and  a 
. , proof  of  its  freedom  from  the  spirit  of  democracy, 

Their  moder-  1 1 J 7 

ation  since  that  the  more  dominant  the  power  of  the  House  of 
the  increase  ^ . _ 

of  their  Commons,  — the  greater  has  been  its  respect  for 
the  law,  and  the  more  carefully  have  its  acts  been 
restrained  within  the  proper  limits  of  its  own  jurisdiction. 
While  its  authority  was  uncertain  and  ill-defined,  — while  it 
was  struggling  against  the  Crown,  — jealous  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  — distrustful  of  the  press,  — and  irresponsible  to  the 
people,  — it  was  tempted  to  exceed  its  constitutional  powers  ; 
but  since  its  political  position  has  been  established,  it  1ms 
been  less  provoked  to  strain  its  jurisdiction ; and  deference 
to  public  opinion,  and  the  experience  of  past  errors,  have 
taught  it  wisdom  and  moderation. 

The  proceedings  of  the  House  in  regard  to  Wilkes,  present 
an  instructive  contrast  to  its  recent  conduct  in  for- 
the  commons  warding  the  admission  of  Jews  to  Parliament. 
BaJon^Roths-  In  the  former  case,  its  own  privileges  were  strained 
child,  1850.  or  a]3an(jone(j  at  pleasure,  and  the  laws  of  the  land 
outraged,  in  order  to  exclude  and  persecute  an  obnoxious 


CONTROL  OVER  THE  EXECUTIVE. 


429 


member.1  How  did  this  same  powerful  body  act  in  the  case 
of  Baron  de  Bothschild  and  Mr.  Salomons  ? Here  the 
House,  — faithful  to  the  principles  of  religious  liberty,  which 
it  had  long  upheld,  — was  earnest  in  its  desire  to  admit  these 
members  to  their  place  in  the  legislature.  They  had  been 
lawfully  chosen  : they  labored  under  no  legal  disability  ; and 
they  claimed  the  privileges  of  members.  A few  words  in  the 
oath  of  abjuration,  alone  prevented  them  from  taking  their 
seats.  A large  majority  of  the  House  was  favorable  to  their 
claims  : the  law  was  doubtful ; and  the  precedent  of  Mr. 
Pease,  a Quaker,  — who  had  been  allowed  to  omit  these 
words,  — was  urged  by  considerable  authorities,  as  a valid 
ground  for  their  admission.  Yet  the  House,  dealing  with  the 
seats  of  its  own  members,  — over  which  it  has  always  had  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction,  — and  with  every  inducement  to  accept 
a broad  and  liberal  interpretation  of  the  law,  — nevertheless 
administered  it  strictly,  and  to  the  very  letter.2  For  several 
years,  the  House  had  endeavored  to  solve  the  difficulty  by 
legislation.  Its  failures,  however,  did  not  tempt  it  to  usurp 
legislative  power,  under  the  semblance  of  judicial  interpre- 
tation. But  it  persevered  in  passing  bills,  in  various  forms, 
until  it  ultimately  forced  upon  the  other  House  an  amend- 
ment of  the  law. 

The  limits  within  which  Parliament,  or  either  House,  may 
constitutionally  exercise  a control  over  the  execu-  control  of 
tive  government,  have  been  defined  by  usage,  upon 
principles  consistent  with  a true  distribution  ofecutive  * 
powers,  in  a free  state  and  limited  monarchy.  Parliament 
has  no  direct  control  over  any  single  department  of  the 
State.  It  may  order  the  production  of  papers,  for  its  informa- 
tion : 3 it  may  investigate  the  conduct  of  public  officers  ; and 
may  pronounce  its  opinion  upon  the  manner  in  which  every 

1 See  supra,  p.  364,  &c. 

2 Hansard’s  Deb.  July  29th  and  30th,  and  Aug.  5th,  1850;  July  18th  and 
21st,  1851.  See  also  Chap.  XII.  on  Civil  and  Religious  Liberty. 

3 Many  papers,  however,  can  only  be  obtained  by  address  to  the  Crown. 


430 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


function  of  the  government  has  been,  or  ought  to  be,  dis- 
charged. But  it  cannot  convey  its  orders  or  directions  to  the 
meanest  executive  officer,  in  relation  to  the  performance  of 
his  duty.  Its  power  over  the  executive  is  exercised  indirect- 
ly, — but  not  the  less  effectively,  — through  the  responsible 
ministers  of  the  Crown.  These  ministers  regulate  the  duties 
of  every  department  of  the  state  ; and  are  responsible  for 
their  proper  performance,  to  Parliament,  as  well  as  to  the 
Crown.  If  Parliament  disapprove  of  any  act,  or  policy  of 
the  government,  — ministers  must  conform  to  its  opinion,  or 
forfeit  its  confidence.  In  this  manner,  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, having  become  the  dominant  body  in  the  legislature, 
has  been  able  to  direct  the  conduct  of  the  government,  and 
control  its  executive  administration  of  public  affairs,  without 
exceeding  its  constitutional  powers.  It  has  a right  to  advise 
the  Crown,  — even  as  to  the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  it- 
self ; and  should  its  advice  be  disregarded,  it  wields  the  pow- 
er of  impeachment,  and  holds  the  purse-strings  of  the  state. 

History  abounds  with  examples,  in  which  the  exercise  of 
it  has  con-  prerogative  has  been  controlled  by  Parliament, 
erciseof pre-'  Even  questions  of  peace  and  war,  which  are 
rogative.  peculiarly  within  the  province  of  prerogative,  have 
peace^and  °f  keen  resolved,  again  and  again,  by  the  interposi- 
war-  tion  of  Parliament.  From  the  reign  of  Edward 

III.,  Parliament  has  been  consulted  by  the  Crown ; and  has 
freely  offered  its  advice  on  questions  of  peace  and  war.1  The 
exercise  of  this  right,  — so  far  from  being  a modern  invasion 
of  the  royal  prerogative,  — is  an  ancient  constitutional  usage. 
It  was  not,  however,  until*  the  power  of  Parliament  had  pre- 
vailed over  prerogative,  that  it  had  the  means  of  enforcing 
its  advice. 

At  a time  when  the  influence  of  the  Crown  had  attained 
its  highest  point  under  George  III.,  the  House  of  Commons 
was  able  to  bring  to  a close  the  disastrous  American  War, 

1 E.  g.  Edw.  III.,  Pari.  Hist.  i.  122;  Henry  VII.,  ibid.  452;  James  I.,  ibid. 
1293 ; Queen  Anne,  ibid.  vi.  609.  « 


CONTROL  OVER  THE  EXECUTIVE. 


431 


against  the  personal  will  of  the  king  himself.  Having  pre- 
sented an  address  against  the  further  prosecution  of  offensive 
war,  — to  which  they  had  received  an  evasive  answer,  — the 
House  proceeded  to  declare,  that  it  would  “ consider  as  ene- 
mies to  his  Majesty  and  this  country  all  who  should  advise, 
or  by  any  means  attempt  the  further  prosecution  of  offensive 
war  on  the  continent  of  America,  for  the  purpose  of  reducing 
the  revolted  colonies  to  obedience  by  force.”  1 Nor  did  the 
House  rest  until  it  had  driven  Lord  North,  the  king’s  war 
minister,  from  power. 

During  the  long  war  with  France,  the  government  was 
pressed  with  repeated  motions,  in  both  Houses,  for  opening 
negotiations  for  peace.2  Ministers  were  strong  enough  to 
resist  them  ; but,  — at  a period  remarkable  for  assertions  of 
prerogative,  — objections  to  such  motions,  on  constitutional 
grounds,  were  rarely  heard.  Indeed  the  Crown,  by  com- 
municating to  Parliament  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities,3  or 
the  commencement  of  negotiations  for  peace,4  has  invited  its 
advice  and  assistance.  That  advice  may  be  unfavorable  to 
the  policy  of  ministers ; and  the  indispensable  assistance  of 
Parliament  may  be  withheld.  If  the  Crown  be  War  with 
dissatisfied  with  the  judgment  of  Parliament,  an  China> 1857  • 
appeal  may  still  be  made  to  the  final  decision  of  the  people. 
In  1857,  the  House  of  Commons  condemned  the  policy  of 
the  war  with  China ; but  ministers,  instead  of  submitting  to 
its  censure,  appealed  to  the  country,  and  obtained  its  ap- 
proval. 

Upon  the  same  principles,  Parliament  has  assumed  the 
right  of  advising  the  Crown,  in  regard  to  the  ex-  Advice  of  Par- 
ercise  of  the  prerogative  of  dissolution.  In  1675,  cerm^ng  disso- 
an  address  was  moved  in  the  House  of  Lords,  lution- 

1 Feb.  27th  and  March  4th,  1782;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1064,  1086,  1087. 

2 Lord  Stanhope,  the  Marquess  of  Lansdowne,  &c. ; Dec.  15th,  1792 ; 
June  17th,  1793,  &c. ; Mr.  Grey,  Feb.  21st,  1794,  &c. ; Mr.  Whitbread,  March 
6th,  1794;  Mr.  Wilberforce,  May  27th,  1795;  Mr.  Sheridan,  Dec.  8th,  1795. 

3 Feb.  11th,  1793;  May  22d,  1815;  March  27th,  1854,  &c. 

4 Dec.  8th,  1795;  Oct.  29th,  1801;  Jan.  31st,  1856. 


432 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


praying  Charles  II.  to  dissolve  the  Parliament ; and  on  the 
rejection  of  the  motion,  several  Lords  entered  their  protest.1 
Lord  Chatham’s  repeated  attempts  to  induce  the  House  of 
Lords  to  address  the  Crown  to  dissolve  the  Parliament 
which  had  declared  the  incapacity  of  Wilkes,  have  been 
lately  noticed.2  The  address  of  the  Commons,  after  the  dis- 
missal of  the  Coalition  Ministry,  praying  the  King  not  to 
dissolve  Parliament,  has  been  described  elsewhere.3  Lord 
Wharncliffe’s  vain  effort  to  arrest  the  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment in  1831,  has  also  been  adverted  to.4 

But  though  the  right  of  Parliament  to  address  the  Crown, 
on  such  occasions  is  unquestionable,  — its  exercise  has  been 
restrained  by  considerations  of  policy,  and  party  tactics. 
The  leaders  of  parties,  — profiting  by  the  experience  of  Mr. 
Fox  and  Lord  North,  — have  since  been  too  wise  to  risk  the 
forfeiture  of  public  esteem,  by  factiously  opposing  the  right 
of  ministers  to  appeal  from  the  House  of  Commons  to  the 
people.  Unless  that  right  has  been  already  exercised,  the 
alternatives  of  resigning  office  or  dissolving  Parliament  have 
been  left,  — by  general  consent,  — to  the  judgment  of  min- 
isters who  cannot  command  the  confidence  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  In  the  exercise  of  their  discretion,  ministers 
have  been  met  with  remonstrances ; but  sullen  acquiescence 
on  the  part  of  their  opponents,  has  given  place  to  violent 
addresses,  and  measures  for  stopping  the  supplies. 

As  Parliament  may  tender  its  advice  to  the  Crown,  re- 
Popuiar  ad-  garding  its  own  dissolution,  so  the  people,  in  their 
cerningCpre-  turn,  have  claimed  the  right  of  praying  the  Crown 
rogative.  to  exercise  its  prerogative,  in  order  to  give  them 
the  means  of  condemning  the  conduct  of  Parliament.  In 
1701,  during  a fierce  contest  between  the  Whig  and  Tory 
parties,  numerous  petitions  and  addresses  were  presented  to 

1 Lords’  Journ.  xiii.  33 ; Lord  Rockingham’s  Mem.  ii.  139. 

2 Supra , p.  380,  381. 

8 Supra , p.  70. 

4 Supra , p.  122. 


CONTROL  OYER  THE  EXECUTIVE. 


433 


William  III.  at  the  instance  of  the  Whigs,  praying  for  the 
dissolution  of  the  Parliament,  which  was  soon  afterwards 
dissolved.1  The  constitutional  character  of  these  addresses 
having  been  questioned,  was  upheld  by  a vote  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  which  affirmed  “ that  it  is  the  undoubted  right 
of  the  people  of  England  to  petition  or  address  the  King, 
for  the  calling,  sitting,  and  dissolving  Parliaments,  and  for 
the  redressing  of  grievances.”  2 In  1710,  similar  tactics 
were  resorted  to  by  the  Tories,  when  addresses  were  pre- 
sented to  Queen  Anne,  praying  for  a dissolution,  and  assur- 
ing her  Majesty  that  the  people  would  choose  none  but  such 
as  were  faithful  to  the  Crown,  and  zealous  for  the  Church.3 

In  1769,  Lord  Chatham  sought  public  support  of  the 
same  kind,  in  his  efforts  to  obtain  a dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment. Lord  Pockingham  and  some  of  the  leading  Whigs, 
who  doubted  at  first,  were  convinced  of  the  constitutional 
propriety  of  such  a course ; and  Lord  Camden  expressed  a 
decisive  opinion,  affirming  the  right  of  the  subject.4  The 
people  were  justly  dissatisfied  with  the  recent  proceedings 
of  the  House  of  Commons;  and  were  encouraged  by  the 
Opposition  to  lay  their  complaints  at  the  foot  of  the  throne, 
and  to  pray  for  a dissolution. 

The  contest  between  Mr.  Pitt  and  the  Coalition  was 
characterized  by  similar  proceedings.  While  the  Commons 
were  protesting  against  a dissolution,  the  supporters  of  Mr. 
Pitt  were  actively  engaged  in  obtaining  addresses  to  his 
Majesty,  to  assure  him  of  the  support  of  the  people,  in  the 
constitutional  exercise  of  his  prerogative.5 

The  House  of  Commons  in  the  first  instance,  — and  the 

1 Burnet’s  Own  Time,  iv.  543.  Rockingham  Mem.  ii.  105. 

2 Pari.  Hist.  v.  1339;  Grenville  Papers,  iv.  446. 

3 Somerville’s  Reign  of  Queen  Anne,  409;  Smollett’s  Hist.  ii.  191;  Gren- 
ville Papers,  iv.  453. 

4 “ His  answer  was  full  and  manly,  that  the  right  is  absolute,  and  unques- 
tionable for  the  exercise.”  Lord  Chatham  to  Lord  Temple,  Nov.  8th,  1769; 
Grenville  Papers,  iv.  479. 

3 See  Address  of  the  City,  Ann.  Reg.,  1784,  p.  4,  &c. 
vol.  i.  28 


434 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


people  in  the  last  resort,  — have  become  arbiters  of  the  fate 
Votes  of  want  °f  the  ministers  of  the  Crown.  Ministers  may 
of  confidence.  jiave  the  entire  confidence  of  their  Sovereign, 
and  be  all-powerful  in  the  House  of  Lords ; but  without  a 
majority  of  the  House  of  Commons,  they  are  unable  to  ad- 
minister the  affairs  of  the  country.  The  fall  of  ministries 
has  more  often  been  the  result  of  their  failure  to  carry  meas- 
ures which  they  have  proposed,  or  of  adverse  votes  on  gen- 
eral questions  of  public  policy ; but  frequently  it  has  been 
due,  — particularly  in  modern  times,  — to  express  represen- 
tations to  the  Crown,  that  its  ministers  have  not  the  confi- 
dence of  the  House  of  Commons.  Where  such  votes  have 
been  agreed  to  by  an  old  Parliament,  — as  in  1784,  — min- 
isters have  still  had  before  them  the  alternative  of  a disso- 
lution ; but  when  they  have  already  appealed  to  the  coun- 
try for  support,  — as  in  1841,  and  again  in  1859,  — a vote 
affirming  that  they  have  not  the  confidence  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  has  been  conclusive. 

The  disapprobation  of  ministers  by  the  House  of  Com- 
Votes  of  con-  nions  being  decisive,  the  expression  of  its  confi- 
fidence.  dence  has,  at  other  times,  arrested  their  impend- 
ing fall.  Thus  in  1831,  Lord  Grey’s  ministry,  embarrassed 
by  an  adverse  vote  of  the  other  House,  on  the  second  re- 
form bill,1  was  supported  by  a declaration  of  the  continued 
confidence  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

And  at  other  times,  the  House  has  interposed  its  advice 
to  the  Crown,  on  the  formation  of  administrations,  with  a 
view  to  favor  or  obstruct  political  arrangements,  then  in 
progress.  Thus,  in  1784,  when  negotiations  had  been  com- 
menced for  a fusion  of  parties,  resolutions  were  laid  before 
his  Majesty  expressing  the  opinion  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, that  the  situation  of  public  affairs  required  a “ firm, 
efficient,  extended,  and  united  administration,  entitled  to  the 
confidence  of  the  people,  and  such  as  may  have  a tendency 
to  put  an  end  to  the  divisions  and  distractions  of  the  coun- 
1 Supra , p.  122. 


CONTROL  OYER  THE  EXECUTIVE. 


435 


try.”  1 Similar  advice  was  tendered  to  the  Prince  Regent 
in  1812,  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Perceval ; and  to  William 
IV.,  in  1832,  on  the  resignation  of  Earl  Grey.2 

But  this  constant  responsibility  of  ministers,  while  it  has 
made  their  position  dependent  upon  the  pleasure  impeach- 
of  Parliament,  has  protected  fallen  ministers  from  ments- 
its  vengeance.  When  the  acts  and  policy  of  statesmen  had 
been  dictated  by  their  duty  to  the  Crown  alone,  without  re- 
gard to  the  approval  of  Parliament,  they  were  in  danger  of 
being  crushed  by  vindictive  impeachments  and  attainders. 
Strafford  had  died  on  the  scaffold ; Clarendon  had  been 
driven  into  exile  ; 3 Danby  had  suffered  a long  imprisonment 
in  the  Tower ; 4 Oxford,  Bolingbroke,  and  Ormond  had  been 
disgraced  and  ruined,5  at  the  suit  of  the  Commons.  But 
Parliamentary  responsibility  has  prevented  the  commission 
of  those  political  crimes,  which  had  provoked  the  indigna- 
tion of  the  Commons  ; and  when  the  conduct  or  policy  of 
ministers  has  been  condemned,  loss  of  power  has  been  their 
only  punishment.  Hence  the  rarity  of  impeachments  in 
later  times.  The  last  hundred  years  present  but  two  cases 
of  impeachment,  — the  one  against  Mr.  Warren  Hastings, 
on  charges  of  misgovernment  in  India,  — the  other  against 
Lord  Melville,  for  alleged  malversation  in  his  office.  The 
former  was  not  a minister  of  the  Crown,  and  he  was  ac- 
cused of  offences  committed  beyond  the  reach  of  Parlia- 
mentary control ; and  the  offences  charged  against  the  latter, 
had  no  relation  to  his  political  duties  as  a responsible  min- 
ister. 

The  case  of  Mr.  Warren  Hastings  finally  established  the 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xxiv.  450 ; Ann.  Reg.  1784,  p.  265. 

2 Supra , p.  110,  338 ; Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xxiii.  249. 

3 Haying  gone  abroad  pending  his  impeachment,  an  Act  of  banishment 
and  incapacity  was  passed  by  Parliament. 

4 Not  being  brought  to  trial,  he  was  admitted  to  bail  by  the  Court  of 
King’s  Bench,  after  an  imprisonment  of  five  years.  St.  Tr.  xi.,  871. 

5 Oxford  was  imprisoned  for  two  years  in  the  Tower.  Bolingbroke  and 
Ormond,  haying*  escaped,  were  attainted. 


436 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


Impeach- 
ments not 
abated  by  a 
dissolution, 
1791. 

assertion  : 


constitutional  doctrine,  that  an  impeachment  by  the  Com- 
mons is  not  terminated  by  any  prorogation  or  dis- 
solution of  Parliament.  It  had  been  affirmed  by 
the  Lords  in  1678,  after  an  examination  of  pre- 
cedents : 1 when  Lord  Stafford  fell  a victim  to  its 
and  six  years  afterwards,  it  had  been  denied,  in 
order  to  secure  the  escape  of  the  “ popish  lords,”  then  under 
impeachment.2  Lord  Danby’s  lingering  impeachment  had 
been  continued  by  the  first  decision,  and  annulled  by  the 
last.  The  same  question  having  arisen  after  the  lapse  of  a 
century,  Parliament  was  called  upon  to  review  the  prece- 
dents of  former  impeachments,  and  to  pass  its  judgment 
upon  the  contradictory  decisions  of  the  Lords.  Many  of 
the  precedents  were  so  obscure  as  to  furnish  arguments  on 
both  sides  of  the  question  ; conflicting  opinions  were  to  be 
found  amongst  text-writers  ; and  the  most  eminent  lawyers 
of  the  day  were  not  agreed.3  But  the  masterly  and  conclu- 
sive speech  of  Mr.  Pitt  was  alone  sufficient  to  settle  the  con- 
troversy, even  on  the  grounds  of  law  and  precedent.  On 
broad  constitutional  principles,  the  first  statesmen  of  all  par- 
ties concurred  in  upholding  the  inviolable  right  of  the  Com- 
mons to  pursue  an  impeachment,  without  interruption  from 
any  act  of  the  Crown.  It  could  not  be  suffered  that  of- 
fenders should  be  snatched  from  punishment,  by  ministers 
who  might  be  themselves  concerned  in  their  guilt.  Nor  wras 
it  just  to  the  accused,  that  one  impeachment  should  be  ar- 
rested before  a judgment  had  been  obtained ; and  another 
preferred,  — on  the  same  or  different  grounds,  — perhaps 
after  his  defence  had  suggested  new  evidence  to  condemn 
him.  Had  not  the  law  already  provided  for  the  continuance 
of  impeachments,  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  declare 


1 March  18th,  19th,  1678.  Lords’  Journ.  xiii.  464,  466. 

2 May  22d,  1685.  Lords’  Journ.  xiv.  11. 

8 Lord  Thurlow,  Lord  Kenyon,  Sir  Richard  Arden,  Sir  Archibald  Mac- 
donald, Sir  John  Scott,  Mr.  Mitford,  and  Mr.  Erskine  contended  for  the 
abatement:  Lord  Mansfield,  Lord  Camden,  Lord  Loughborough,  and  Sir 
William  Grant,  maintained  its  continuance. 


STRONG  AND  WEAK  GOVERNMENTS. 


437 


it.  But  it  was  agreed  in  both  Houses,  by  large  majorities, 
that  by  the  law  and  custom  of  Parliament,  an  impeachment 
pending  in  the  House  of  Lords  continued  in  statu  quo , from 
one  Session  and  from  one  Parliament  to  another,  until  a 
judgment  had  been  given.1 

As  parliamentary  responsibility  has  spared  ministers  the 
extreme  penalties  of  impeachments,  — so  it  has  _ 

1 r 7 Improved  re- 

protected  the  Crown  from  those  dangerous  and  lations  of  the 

i Crown  with 

harassing  contests  with  the  Commons,  with  which  the  Oom- 
the  earlier  history  of  this  country  abounds.  What  mons' 
the  Crown  has  lost  in  power,  it  has  gained  in  security  and 
peace.  Until  the  Commons  had  fully  established  their  con- 
stitutional rights,  they  had  been  provoked  to  assert  them 
with  violence,  and  to  press  them  to  extreme  conclusions  ; but 
they  have  exercised  them,  when  acknowdedged,  wdth  moder- 
ation and  forbearance. 

At  the  same  time,  ministers  of  the  Crown  have  encoun- 
tered greater  difficulties,  from  the  increased  power  strong  and 
and  independence  of  the  Commons,  and  the  more  weak  govern- 
direct  action  of  public  opinion  upon  measures  of 
legislation  and  policy.  They  are  no  longer  able  to  fall  back 
upon  the  Crown  for  support : their  patronage  is  reduced, 
and  their  influence  diminished.  They  are  left  to  secure  a 
majority,  not  so  much  by  party  connections,  as  by  good 
measures  and  popular  principles.  Any  error  of  judgment, 
— any  failure  in  policy  or  administration,  is  liable  to  be  vis- 
ited with  instant  censure.  Defeated  in  the  Commons,  they 
have  no  resource  but  an  appeal  to  the  country,  unaided  by 
those  means  of  influence,  upon  which  ministers  formerly 
relied. 

Their  responsibility  is  great  and  perilous ; but  it  has  at 
least  protected  them  from  other  embarrassments,  of  nearly 
equal  danger.  When  the  Crown  was  more  powerful,  what 

1 Com.  Deb.;  Pari.  Hist,  xxviii.  1018,  etseq.;  Lords’  Deb.;  ibid.  xxix. 
514;  Report  of  Precedents;  Lords’  Journ.  xxxix.  125;  Tomline’s  Life  of 
Pitt,  iii.  161. 


438 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


was  the  fate  of  ministries  ? The  first  ten  years  of  the 
reign  of  George  III.  witnessed  the  fall  of  five  feeble  admin- 
istrations ; and  their  instability  was  mainly  due  to  the  rest- 
less energies  of  the  king.  Until  Mr.  Pitt  came  into  power, 
there  had  not  been  one  strong  administration  during  this 
reign.  It  was  the  king  himself  who  overthrew  the  Coali- 
tion Ministry,  the  absolute  government  of  Mr.  Pitt,  and  the 
administration  of  “ All  the  Talents.” 

For  more  than  ten  years  after  Mr.  Pitt’s  fall,  there  was 
again  a succession  of  weak  administrations,  of  short  dura- 
tion. If  the  king  could  uphold  a ministry,  — he  could  also 
weaken  or  destroy  it.  From  this  danger,  governments  under 
the  new  parliamentary  system,  have  been  comparatively  free. 
More  responsible  to  Parliament,  they  have  become  less  de- 
pendent upon  the  Crown.  The  confidence  of  the  one  has 
guarded  them  from  the  displeasure  of  the  other. 

No  cause  of  ministerial  weakness  has  been  more  frequent 
than  disunion.  It  is  the  common  lot  of  men  acting  together  ; 
and  is  not  peculiar  to  any  time,  or  political  conditions.  Yet 
when  ministers  looked  to  the  Crown  for  support,  and  relied 
upon  the  great  territorial  lords  for  a parliamentary  majority, 
— what  causes  were  so  fruitful  of  jealousies  and  dissensions, 
as  the  intrigues  of  the  court,  and  the  rivalries  of  the  pro- 
prietors of  boroughs?  Here,  again,  governments  deriving 
their  strength  and  union  from  Parliament  and  the  people, 
have  been  less  exposed  to  danger  in  this  form.  Govern- 
ments have,  indeed,  been  weakened,  as  in  former  times,  by 
divisions  among  their  own  party  ; but  they  have  been,  in 
some  measure,  protected  from  faction,  by  the  greater  re- 
sponsibility of  all  parties  to  public  opinion.  This  protection 
will  be  more  assured,  when  the  old  system  of  government, 
by  influence  and  patronage,  shall  give  place  to  the  recogni- 
tion of  national  interests,  as  the  sole  basis  of  party. 

The  responsibility  of  ministers  has  been  further  simplified, 
by  the  dominant  power  of  the  Commons.  The  Lords  may 
sometimes  thwart  a ministry,  reject  or  mutilate  its  measures, 


STRONG  AND  WEAK  GOVERNMENTS. 


439 


and  even  condemn  its  policy  ; but  they  are  powerless  to 
overthrow  a ministry  supported  by  the  Commons,  or  to  up- 
hold a ministry  which  the  Commons  have  condemned.  In- 
stead of  many  masters,  a government  has  only  one.  Nor 
can  it  be  justly  said,  that  this  master  has  been  severe,  exact- 
ing, or  capricious. 

It  can  neither  be  affirmed  that  strong  governments  were 
characteristic  of  the  parliamentary  system,  subverted  by  the 
reform  act ; nor  that  weak  governments  have  been  charac- 
teristic of  the  new  system,  and  the  result  of  it.  In  both 
periods,  the  stability  of  administrations  has  been  due  to 
other  causes.  If  in  the  latter  period,  ministers  have  been 
overthrown,  who,  at  another  time  might  have  been  upheld 
by  the  influence  of  the  Crown  ; there  have  yet  been  govern- 
ments supported  by  a parliamentary  majority  and  public  ap- 
probation, stronger  in  moral  force,  — and  more  capable  of 
overpowering  interests  adverse  to  the  national  welfare,  — 
than  any  ministries  deriving  their  power  from  less  popular 
sources. 

After  the  reform  act,  Lord  Grey’s  ministry  was  all-power- 
ful, until  it  was  dissolved  by  disunion  in  the  cabinet.  No 
government  was  ever  stronger  than  that  of  Sir  Robert  Peel, 
until  it  was  broken  up  by  the  repeal  of  the  corn-laws. 
Lord  Aberdeen’s  cabinet  was  scarcely  less  strong,  until  it 
fell  by  disunion  and  military  failures.  What  government 
was  more  powerful  than  Lord  Palmerston’s  first  administra- 
tion, until  it  split  upon  the  sunken  rock  of  the  Orsini  con- 
spiracy ? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  ministry  of  Lord  Melbourne  was 
enfeebled  by  the  disunion  of  the  Liberal  party.  The  first 
ministry  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  and  both  the  ministries  of 
Lord  Derby  were  inevitably  weak,  — being  formed  upon  a 
hopeless  minority  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Such  causes 
would  have  produced  weakness  at  any  time  ; and  are  not 
chargeable  upon  the  caprices,  or  ungovernable  temper,  of  a 
reformed  Parliament.  And  throughout  this  period,  all  ad- 


440 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ministrations,  — whether  strong  or  weak,  and  of  whatever 
political  party,  — relying  mainly  upon  public  confidence, 
have  labored  successfully  in  the  cause  of  good  government ; 
and  have  secured  to  the  people  more  sound  laws,  prosperity, 
and  contentment,  than  have  been  enjoyed  at  any  previous 
epoch,  in  the  history  of  this  country. 

One  of  the  most  ancient  and  valued  rights  of  the  Com- 
Controiof  the  mons>  is  that  of  voting  money  and  granting  taxes 
overTuppiies  to  Crown,  for  the  public  service.  From  the 
and  taxes.  earliest  times,  they  have  made  this  right  the 
means  of  extorting  concessions  from  the  Crown,  and  advan- 
cing the  liberties  of  the  people.  They  upheld  it  with  a bold 
spirit  against  the  most  arbitrary  kings ; and  the  Bill  of 
Rights  crowned  their  final  triumph  over  prerogative.  They 
upheld  it  with  equal  firmness  against  the  Lords.  For  cen- 
turies they  had  resented  any  “ meddling  ” of  the  other 
House  “ with  matter  of  supply ; ” and  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.,  they  successfully  maintained  their  exclusive 
right  to  determine  “ as  to  the  matter,  the  measure,  and  the 
time  ” of  every  tax  imposed  upon  the  people. 

In  the  same  reign,  they  began  to  scrutinize  the  public  ex- 
penditure ; and  introduced  the  salutary  practice  of  appropri- 
ating their  grants  to  particular  purposes.  But  they  had  not 
yet  learned  the  value  of  a constant  control  over  the  revenue 
and  expenditure  of  the  Crown ; and  their  liberality  to 
Charles,  and  afterwards  to  James  II.,  enabled  those  mon- 
archs  to  violate  the  public  liberties. 

The  experience  of  these  reigns  prevented  a repetition  of 
the  error ; and  since  the  Revolution,  the  grants  of 

Their  liberal-  7 ® 

ity  to  the  the  Commons  have  been  founded  on  annual  esti- 
mates, — laid  before  them  on  the  responsibility  of 
ministers  of  the  Crown,  — and  strictly  appropriated  to  the 
service  of  the  year.  This  constant  control  over  the  public 
expenditure  has,  more  than  any  other  cause,  vested  in  the 
Commons  the  supreme  power  of  the  state ; yet  the  results 
have  been  favorable  to  the  Crown.  When  the  Commons 


CONTROL  OYER  EXPENDITURE. 


441 


had  neither  information  as  to  the  necessities  of  the  state,  nor 
securities  for  the  proper  application  of  their  grants,  — they 
had  often  failed  to  respond  to  the  solicitation  of  the  king  for 
subsidies,  — or  their  liberality  had  fallen  short  of  his  de- 
mands.1 But  not  once  since  the  Revolution,  have  the  de- 
mands of  the  Crown  for  the  public  service,  been  refused. 
Whatever  sums  ministers  have  stated  to  be  necessary,  for  all 
the  essential  services  of  the  state,  the  Commons  have  freely 
granted.2  Not  a soldier  has  been  struck  from  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  army ; not  a sailor  or  a ship  from  the  fleet,  by 
any  vote  of  the  Commons.  So  far  from  opposing  the  de- 
mands of  the  Crown,  they  have  rather  laid  themselves  open 
to  the  charge  of  too  facile  an  acquiescence  in  a constantly 
increasing  expenditure.  Since  they  have  assumed  the  con- 
trol of  the  finances,  the  expenditure  has  increased  about 
fifty -fold ; and  a stupendous  national  debt  has  been  created. 
Doubtless  their  control  has  been  a check  upon  ministers. 
The  fear  of  their  remonstrances,  has  restrained  the  prodi- 
gality of  the  executive  ; but  parsimony  cannot  be  justly  laid 
to  their  charge.  The  people  may  have  some  grounds  for  .. 
complaining  of  their  stewardship ; but  assuredly  the  Crown 
and  its  ministers  have  none. 

While  voting  the  estimates,  however,  the  Commons  have 
sometimes  dissented  from  the  financial  arrange-  Ministers  de- 
ments proposed  by  ministers.  Responding  to  the  financial1 
pecuniary  demands  of  the  Crown,  they  have  measures. 

1 In  1625,  the  Commons  postponed  the  supplies  demanded  by  Charles  I. 
for  carrying  on  the  war  with  Spain.  — Pari.  Hist.  ii.  35.  In  1675,  they 
refused  a supply  to  Charles  II.,  to  take  off  the  anticipations  upon  his  rev- 
enue. — Ibid.  iv.  757.  In  1677,  they  declined  a further  supply  till  his  Maj- 
esty’s alliances  were  made  known.  — Ibid.  879.  And  in  the  next  year  they 
refused  him  an  additional  revenue.  — Ibid.  1000.  In  1685,  James  II.  re- 
quired 1,400,000Z. ; the  Commons  granted  one  half  only.  — Ibid.  1379. 

2 With  a few  exceptions,  so  trifling  as  to  he  almost  ridiculous,  it  will  be 
found  that  the  annual  estimates  have  been  voted  without  deduction ; e.  g. 
in  1858,  the  only  result  of  the  vigilance  of  Parliament  was  a disallowance 
of  300?.  as  the  salary  of  the  travelling  agent  of  the  National  Gallery! 
In  1859,  the  salary  of  the  Register  of  Sasines  was  refused;  but  on  the 
recommitment  of  the  resolution,  was  restored ! 


442 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


disapproved  the  policy,  by  which  it  was  sought  to  meet 
them.  In  1767  Mr.  Charles  Townshend,  the  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer,  proposed  to  continue  for  one  year,  the  land 
tax  of  four  shillings  in  the  pound ; but  on  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Grenville,  the  tax  was  reduced  to  three  shillings,  by 
which  the  budget  sustained  a loss  of  half  a million.  This 
was  the  first  occasion,  since  the  Revolution,  on  which  a min- 
ister had  been  defeated  upon  any  financial  measure.1 

Throughout  the  French  war,  the  Commons  agreed  to 
every  grant  of  money,  and  to  every  new  tax  and  loan, 
proposed  by  successive  administrations.  But  on  the  ter- 
mination of  the  war,  when  the  ministers  desired  to  continue 
one  half  of  the  war  property  tax,  amounting  to  about  seven 
millions  and  a half,  — such  was  the  national  repugnance  to  that 
tax,  that  they  sustained  a signal  defeat.2  Again  in  1852, 
Lord  Derby’s  ministry  were  out- voted  on  their  proposal  for 
doubling  the  house  tax.3  But  when  the  Commons  have  thus 
differed  from  the  ministry,  the  questions  at  issue  have  in- 
volved the  form  and  incidence  of  taxation,  and  not  the  neces- 
sities of  the  state  ; and  their  votes  have  neither  diminished 
the  public  expenditure,  nor  reduced  the  ultimate  burdens 
upon  the  people. 

Nor  have  the  Commons,  by  postponing  grants,  or  in  other 
stopping  the  words,  by  “ stopping  the  supplies,”  endeavored  to 
supplies.  coerce  the  other  powers  in  the  state.  No  more 
formidable  instrument  could  have  been  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a popular  assembly,  for  bending  the  executive  to  its  will. 
It  had  been  wielded  with  effect,  when  the  prerogative  of 
kings  was  high,  and  the  influence  of  the  Commons  low  ; but 
now  the  weapon  lies  rusty  in  the  armory  of  constitutional 
warfare.  In  1781,  Mr.  Thomas  Pitt  proposed  to  delay  the 
granting  of  the  supplies  for  a few  days,  in  order  to  extort 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  362. 

2 Ayes  201,  Noes  238;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  1st  Ser.,  xxxiii.  451;  Lord 
Brougham’s  Speeches,  i.  495;  Lord  Dudley’s  Letters,  136;  Horner’s  Mem. 
ii.  318. 

8 Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  cxxiii.  1693. 


CONTROL  OYER  EXPENDITURE. 


443 


from  Lord  North  a pledge  regarding  the  war  in  America. 
It  was  then  admitted  that  no  such  proposal  had  been  made 
since  the  Revolution ; and  the  House  resolved  to  proceed 
with  the  committee  of  supply,  by  a large  majority.1  In  the 
same  session  Lord  Rockingham  moved,  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  to  postpone  the  third  reading  of  a land  tax  bill,  until 
explanations  had  been  given  regarding  the  causes  of  Admiral 
Kempenfeldt’s  retreat ; but  did  not  press  it  to  a division.2 

The  precedent  of  1784,  is  the  solitary  instance  in  which 
the  Commons  have  exercised  their  power  of  delaying  the 
supplies.  They  were  provoked  to  use  it,  by  the  unconstitu- 
tional exercise  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown ; but  it  failed 
them  at  their  utmost  need,3  — and  the  experiment  has  not 
been  repeated.  Their  responsibility,  indeed,  has  become  too 
great  for  so  perilous  a proceeding.  The  establishments  and 
public  credit  of  the  country  are  dependent  on  their  votes  ; 
and  are  not  to  be  lightly  thrown  into  disorder.  Nor  are  they 
driven  to  this  expedient  for  coercing  the  executive  ; as  they 
have  other  means,  not  less  effectual,  for  directing  the  policy 
of  the  state. 

While  the  Commons  have  promptly  responded  to  the  de- 
mands of  the  Crown,  they  have  endeavored  to  Restraints 
guard  themselves  against  importunities  from  other  eraSy  of  the 
quarters,  and  from  the  unwise  liberality  of  their  Commons- 
own  members.  They  will  not  listen  to  any  petition  or  mo- 
tion which  involves  a grant  of  public  money,  until  it  has  .re- 
ceived the  recommendation  of  the  Crown ; 4 and  they  have 
further  protected  the  public  purse,  by  delays  and  other  forms, 
against  hasty  and  inconsiderate  resolutions.5  Such  precau- 
tions have  been  the  more  necessary,  as  there  are  no  checks 
upon  the  liberality  of  the  Commons,  but  such  as  they  impose 

1 Nov.  30,  1781;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  751;  Ayes  172,  Noes  77.  Mr.  T.  Pitt 
had  merely  opposed  the  motion  for  the  Speaker  to  leave  the  Chair. 

2 Nov.  19;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  865. 

8 See  supra , p.  72. 

4 Standing  Order,  Dec.  11th,  1706. 

5 See  May’s  Law  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  4th  ed.  512. 


444 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


upon  themselves.  The  Lords  have  no  voice  in  questions  of 
expenditure,  save  that  of  a formal  assent  to  the  Appropria- 
tion Acts.  They  are  excluded  from  it  by  the  spirit,  and  by 
the  forms  of  the  constitution. 

Not  less  exclusive  has  been  the  right  of  the  Commons  to 
Exclusive  grant  taxes,  to  meet  the  public  expenditure.  These 
rights  of  the  rights  are  indeed  inseparable  ; and  are  founded  on 

Commons  ° A 

concerning  the  same  principles.  “ Taxation,”  said  Lord  Chat- 
ham, “ is  no  part  of  the  governing,  or  legislative 
power.  The  taxes  are  a voluntary  gift  and  grant  of  the 
Commons  alone.  In  legislation  the  three  estates  of  the 
realm  are  alike  concerned  ; but  the  concurrence  of  the  peers 
and  the  Crown  to  a tax,  is  only  necessary  to  clothe  it  with 
the  form  of  a law.  The  gift  and  grant  is  of  the  Commons 
alone.” 1 On  these  principles,  the  Commons  had  declared 
that  a money  bill  was  sacred  from  amendment.  In  their 
gifts  and  grants,  they  would  brook  no  meddling.  Such  a 
position  was  not  established  without  hot  controversies.2  Nor 
was  it  ever  expressly  admitted  by  the  Lords ; 3 but  as  they 
were  unable  to  shake  the  strong  determination  of  the  Com- 
mons, they  tacitly  acquiesced,  and  submitted.  For  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years,  there  was  scarcely  a dispute  upon  this 
privilege.  The  Lords,  knowing  how  any  amendment  affect- 
ing a charge  upon  the  people,  would  be  received  by  the  Com- 
mons, either  abstained  from  making  it,  or  averted  misunder- 
standing, by  not  returning  the  amended  bill.  And  when  an 
amendment  was  made,  to  which  the  Commons  could  not 
agree,  on  the  ground  of  privilege  alone,  it  was  their  custom 

1 Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  99. 

2 The  Reports  of  the  conferences  between  the  two  Houses  (1640-1703), 
containing  many  able  arguments  on  either  side,  are  collected  in  the  Ap- 
pendix to  the  third  volume  of  Hatsell’s  Precedents,  and  in  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  on  Tax  Bills,  1860. 

8 To  the  claim,  as  very  broadly  asserted  by  the  Commons  in  1700,  at  a 
conference  upon  the  Bill  for  the  Sale  of  Irish  Forfeited  Estates,  the  Lords 
replied : “ If  the  said  assertions  were  exactly  true,  which  their  Lordships 
cannot  allow.” 


EXCLUSIVE  RIGHTS  OF  TAXATION. 


445 


to  save  their  privilege,  by  sending  up  a new  bill,  embracing 
the  Lords’  amendment. 

But  if  the  Lords  might  not  amend  money  bills,  could  they 
not  reject  them  ? This  very  question  was  dis-  Vo^er  of  the 
cussed  in  1671.  The  Commons  had  then  denied  Lordsto reject 
the  right  of  amendment,  on  the  broadest  grounds.  a money 
In  reply,  the  Lords  argued  thus : — “If  this  right  should  be 
denied,  the  Lords  have  not  a negative  voice  allowed  them, 
in  bills  of  this  nature ; for  if  the  Lords,  who  have  the  power 
of  treating,  advising,  giving  counsel,  and  applying  remedies, 
cannot  amend,  abate,  or  refuse  a bill  in  part,  by  what  con- 
sequence of  reason,  can  they  enjoy  a liberty  to  reject  the 
whole  ? When  the  Commons  shall  think  fit  to  question  it, 
they  may  pretend  the  same  grounds  for  it.”  The  Commons, 
however,  admitted  the  right  of  rejection.  “ Your  Lordships,” 
they  said,  “ have  a negative  to  the  whole.”  “The  king  must 
deny  the  wThole  of  every  Bill,  or  pass  it ; yet  this  takes  not 
away  his  negative  voice.  The  Lords  and  Commons  must 
accept  the  whole  general  pardon  or  deny  it ; yet  this  takes 
not  away  their  negative.” 1 And  again  in  1689,  it  was  stated 
by  a committee  of  the  Commons,  that  the  Lords  are  “ to  pass 
all  or  reject  all,  without  diminution  or  alteration.” 2 But 
these  admissions  cost  the  Commons  nothing,  at  that  time. 
To  reject  a money  bill,  was  to  withhold  supplies  from  the 
Crown,  — an  act  of  which  the  Lords  were  not  to  be  sus- 
pected. The  Lords  themselves  were  fully  alive  to  this  diffi- 
culty, and  complained  that  “ a hard  and  ignoble  choice  was 
left  to  them,  either  to  refuse  the  Crown  supplies  when  they 
are  most  necessary,  or  to  consent  to  ways  and  proportions  of 
aid,  which  neither  their  own  judgment  or  interest,  nor  the 
good  of  the  government  and  people,  can  admit.”  3 In  argu- 

1 Hatsell,  iii.  405,  422,  423. 

2 Ibid.  452.  This  admission,  however,  is  not  of  equal  authority,  as  it 
formed  part  of  the  reasons  reported  from  a committee,  which  were  recom- 
mitted, and  not  adopted  by  the  House. 

3 Conference,  1671 ; Hatsell,  iii.  405. 


446 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


ment,  the  Commons  were  content  to  recognize  this  barren 
right ; yet  so  broad  were  the  grounds  on  which  they  rested 
their  own  claims  of  privilege,  — and  so  stubborn  was  their 
temper  in  maintaining  them,  — that  it  may  well  be  questioned 
whether  they  would  have  submitted  to  its  practical  exercise. 
If  the  Lords  had  rejected  a bill  for  granting  a tax,  — would 
the  Commons  have  immediately  granted  another  ? Would 
they  not  rather  have  sat  with  folded  arms,  rejoicing  that  the 
people  were  spared  a new  impost ; while  the  king’s  treasury 
was  beggared  by  the  interference  of  the  Lords  ? 

Taxes  were  then  of  a temporary  character.  They  were 

Temporary  granted  f°r  one  year?  or  f°r  a longer  period,  ac- 
and  perma-  cording  to  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion.  Hearth 
money  was  the  first  permanent  tax,  imposed  in 
1663.1  No  other  tax  of  that  character  appears  to  have  been 
granted,  until  after  the  Revolution  ; when  permanent  duties 
were  raised  on  beer,2  on  salt,3  on  vellum  and  paper,4  on 
houses,5  and  on  coffee.6  These  duties  were  generally  granted 
as  a security  for  loans  ; and  the  financial  policy  of  permanent 
taxes  increased  with  the  national  debt,  and*  the  extension  of 
public  credit.  This  policy  somewhat  altered  the  position  of 
the  Lords,  in  relation  to  tax  bills.  Taxes  were  from  time  to 
time  varied  and  repealed  ; and  to  such  alterations  of  the  law, 
the  Lords  might  have  refused  their  assent,  without  withhold- 
ing supplies  from  the  Crown.  But  such  opportunities  were 
not  sought  by  the  Lords.  They  had  given  up  the  contest 
upon  privilege  ; and  wisely  left  to  the  Commons,  the  re- 
sponsibility and  the  odium,  of  constantly  increasing  the  pub- 
lic burdens.  Taxes  and  loans  were  multiplied ; but  the 
Lords  accepted  them,  without  question.  They  rarely  even 
discussed  financial  measures;  and  when  in  1763,  they  op- 

113  & 14  Charles  II.  c.  10. 

2 1 Will,  and  Mary,  Sess.  1,  c.  24. 

8 5 & 6 Will,  and  Mary,  c.  31. 

4 9 & 10  Will.  III.  c.  25. 

6 5 Anne,  c.  13. 

6 7 Ibid.  c.  7. 


EXCLUSIVE  EIGHTS  OF  TAXATION. 


447 


posed  the  third  reading  of  the  Wines  and  Cider  Duties  Bill, 
it  was  observed  that  this  was  the  first  occasion,  on  which 
they  had  been  known  to  divide  upon  a money  bill.1 

But  while  they  abstained  from  interference  with  the  sup- 
plies and  ways  and  means,  granted  by  the  Com-  ^ billg  re 
mons  for  the  public  service,  they  occasionally  re-  jected  by  the 
jected  or  postponed  other  bills,  incidentally  affect- 
ing supply  and  taxation : bills  imposing  or  repealing  protec- 
tive duties  ; bills  for  the  regulation  of  trade  ; and  bills  em- 
bracing other  disputable  matters  of  legislation,  irrespective  of 
taxation.  Of  these,  the  greater  part  were  measures  of  leg- 
islative policy,  rather  than  measures  of  revenue  ; and  with 
the  single  exception  of  the  Corn  Bill  of  1827,  their  fate  does 
not  appear  to  have  excited  any  jealousy  in  the  sensitive 
minds  of  the  Commons. 

At  length,  in  1860,  the  Lords  exercised  their  power,  in  a 
novel  and  startling  form.  The  Commons  had  re- 

° . Paper  Duties 

solved,  among  other  financial  arrangements  for  the  Repeal  Bill, 

year,  to  increase  the  property  tax  and  stamp  duties, 
and  to  repeal  the  duties  on  paper.  The  Property  Tax  and 
Stamp  Duties  Bills  had  already  received  the  royal  assent, 
when  the  Paper  Duties  Repeal  Bill  was  received  by  the 
Lords.  It  had  encountered  strong  opposition  in  the  Com- 
mons, where  its  third  reading  was  agreed  to,  by  the  small 
majority  of  nine.  And  now  the  Lords  determined,  by  a ma- 
jority of  eighty-nine,  to  postpone  the  second  reading  for  six 
months.  Having  assented  to  the  increased  taxation  of  the 
annual  budget,  they  refused  the  relief,  by  which  it  had  been 
accompanied. 

Never  until  now,  had  the  Lords  rejected  a bill  for  impos- 
ing or  repealing  a tax,  raised  solely  for  the  pur- 

n & ^ Relative 

poses  ot  revenue,  — and  involving  the  supplies  and  rights  of  the 

ways  and  means,  for  the  service  of  the  year. 

Never  had  they  assumed  the  right  of  reviewing  the  calcula- 
tions of  the  Commons,  regarding  revenue  and  expenditure. 

1 March  30th,  1763;  Pari.  Hist.  xv.  1316. 


448 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


In  principle,  all  previous  invasions  of  the  cherished  rights  of 
the  Commons,  had  been  trifling  compared  with  this.  What 
was  a mere  amendment  in  a money  bill,  compared  with  its 
irrevocable  rejection  ? But  on  the  other  hand,  the  legal 
right  of  the  Lords  to  reject  any  bill  whatever,  could  not  be 
disputed.  Even  their  constitutional  right  to  “ negative  the 
whole  ” of  a money  bill,  had  been  admitted  by  the  Commons 
themselves.  Nor  was  this  strictly,  and  in  technical  form,  a 
money  bill.  It  neither  granted  any  tax  to  the  Crown,  nor 
recited  that  the  paper  duty  was  repealed,  in  consideration  of 
other  taxes  imposed.  It  simply  repealed  the  existing  law, 
under  which  the  duty  was  levied.  Technically,  no  privilege 
of  the  Commons,  as  previously  declared,  had  been  infringed. 
Yet  it  was  contended,  with  great  force,  that  to  undertake  the 
office  of  revising  the  balances  of . supplies  and  ways  and 
means,  — which  had  never  been  assumed  by  the  Lords,  during 
two  hundred  years,  — was  a breach  of  constitutional  usage, 
and  a violation  of  the  first  principles,  upon  which  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  House  are  founded.  If  the  letter  of  the  law 
was  with  the  Lords,  its  spirit  was  clearly  with  the  Commons. 

Had  the  position  of  parties,  and  the  temper  of  the  times 
been  such  as  to  encourage  a violent  collision  be- 

Proceedings  0 

of  the  Com-  tween  the  two  Houses,  — there  had  rarely  been 
an  occasion  more  likely  to  provoke  it.  But  this 
embarrassment  the  government  were  anxious  to  avert ; and 
many  causes  concurred  to  favor  moderate  counsels.  A com- 
mittee was  therefore  appointed  in  the  Commons,  to  search  for 
precedents.  The  search  was  long  and  intricate : the  report 
copious  and  elaborate  ; but  no  opinion  was  given  upon  the 
grave  question  at  issue.  The  lapse  of  six  weeks  had  already 
moderated  the  heat  and  excitement  of  the  controversy  ; when 
on  the  5th  July,  Lord  Palmerston,  on  the  part  of  the  gov- 
ernment, explained  the  course  which  he  counselled  the  House 
to  adopt.  Having  stated  what  were  the  acknowledged  priv- 
ileges of  the  House,  and  referred  to  the  precedents  collected 
by  the  committee,  he  expressed  his  opinion  that  the  Lords, 


EXCLUSIVE  RIGHTS  OF  TAXATION. 


449 


in  rejecting  the  Paper  Duties  Bill,  had  no  desire  to  invade 
the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Commons  ; but  had  been  ac- 
tuated, as  on  former  occasions,  by  motives  of  public  policy. 
He  could  not  believe  that  they  were  commencing  a deliberate 
course  of  interference  with  the  peculiar  functions  of  the  Com- 
mons. But  should  that  appear  to  be  their  intention,  the  lat- 
ter would  know  how  to  vindicate  their  privileges,  if  invaded, 
and  would  be  supported  by  the  people.  He  deprecated  a col- 
lision between  the  two  Houses.  Any  one  who  should  pro- 
voke it,  would  incur  a grave  responsibility.  With  these 
views,  he  proposed  three  resolutions.  The  first  asserted  gen- 
erally, “ that  the  right  of  granting  aids  and  supplies  to  the 
Crown,  is  in  the  Commons  alone.”  The  second  affirmed, 
that  although  the  Lords  had  sometimes  exercised  the  power 
of  rejecting  bills  of  several  descriptions,  relating  to  taxation, 
yet  the  exercise  of  that  power  was  “justly  regarded  by  this 
House  with  peculiar  jealousy,  as  affecting  the  right  of  the 
Commons  to  grant  the  supplies,  and  to  provide  the  ways  and 
means  for  the  service  of  the  year.”  The  third  stated,  “ that 
to  guard  for  the  future,  against  an  undue  exercise  of  that 
power  by  the  Lords,  and  to  secure  to  the  Commons  their 
rightful  control  over  taxation  and  supply,  this  House  has  in 
its  own  hands,  the  power  so  to  impose  and  remit  taxes,  and 
to  frame  bills  of  supply,  that  the  right  of  the  Commons  as  to 
the  matter,  manner,  measure,  and  time,  may  be  maintained 
inviolate.” 

The  aim  of  these  resolutions  was  briefly  this : — to  assert 
broadly  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  Commons  : to  qual- 
ify former  admissions,  by  declaring  their  jealousy  of  the 
power  exercised  by  the  Lords,  of  rejecting  bills  relating  to 
taxation ; and  to  convey  a warning  that  the  Commons  had 
the  means  of  resisting  that  power,  if  unduly  exercised,  and 
were  prepared  to  use  them.  They  were  a protest  against 
future  encroachments : not  a remonstrance  on  the  past. 
The  resolutions,  though  exposed  to  severe  criticism,  as  not 
sufficiently  vindicating  the  privileges  of  the  House,  or  con- 
vol.  i.  29 


450 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


demning  the  recent  conduct  of  the  Lords,  were  jet  accepted, 
— it  may  be  said,  unanimously.1  The  soundest  friends  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  and  of  constitutional  government,  hoped 
that  a course  so  temperate  and  conciliatory,  might  prevent 
future  differences  of  the  same  kind.  Should  their  hope  be 
falsified,  the  Commons,  having  shown  an  example  of  for- 
bearance, — which  might  have  been  vainly  sought,  in  an  as- 
sembly less  conscious  of  its  strength,  — may  be  provoked 
to  exercise  their  unquestionable  powers.  Having  gained 
moral  force,  by  their  previous  moderation,  they  would  not 
appeal  in  vain  for  popular  support,  — and  who  can  doubt  the 
result  ? 

One  of  the  proud  results  of  our  free  constitution  has  been 
Pariiamenta-  the  development  of  Parliamentary  oratory,  — an 
ry  oratory.  h0n0r  and  ornament  to  our  history,  — a source 
of  public  enlightenment,  — and  an  effective  instrument  of 
popular  government.  Its  excellence  has  varied,  like  our 
literature,  with  the  genius  of  the  men,  and  the  events  of 
the  periods,  which  have  called  it  forth ; but  from  the  acces- 
sion of  George  III.  may  be  dated  the  Augustan  era  of 
Parliamentary  eloquence. 

The  great  struggles  of  the  Parliament  with  Charles  I. 
had  stirred  the  eloquence  of  Pym,  Hampden,  Wentworth, 
and  Falkland:  the  Revolution  had  developed  the  oratory  of 
Somers  ; and  the  Parliaments  of  Anne,  and  the  two  first 
Georges,  had  given  scope  to  the  various  talents  of  Boling- 
broke,  Pulteney,  Wyndham,  and  Walpole.  The  reputation 
of  these  men  has  reached  posterity ; but  their  speeches,  — 
if  they  survived  the  memory  of  their  own  generations, — 
have  come  down  to  us  in  fragments,  — as  much  the  compo- 
sition of  the  historian  or  reporter,  as  of  the  orators,  to  whom 
they  are  assigned.2  Happily  the  very  period  distinguished 

1 Debates,  July  5th  and  6th,  1860;  Hansard’s  Deb.,  3d  Ser.,  clix.  1383; 
Report  of  Committee  on  Tax  Bills,  June  29th,  1860. 

2 Of  the  speeches  of  Somers  and  Bolingbroke  there  are  no  remains  what- 
ever. Mr.  Pitt  said  he  would  rather  recover  a speech  of  Bolingbroke  than 
the  lost  books  of  Livy,  or  other  writings  of  antiquity. 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


451 


by  our  most  eloquent  statesmen  was  that  in  which  they  had 
the  privilege  of  addressing  posterity,  as  well  as  their  own 
contemporaries.  The  expansion  of  their  audience  gave  a 
new  impulse  to  their  eloquence,  which  was  worthy  of  being 
preserved  for  all  ages. 

Lord  Chatham  had  attained  the  first  place  among  states- 
men in  the  late  reign,  but  his  fame  as  an  orator  Lord  Chat- 
mainly  rests  upon  his  later  speeches, — in  the  ham* 
reign  of  George  III.  Lofty  and  impassioned  in  his  style, 
and  dramatic  in  his  manner,  his  oratory  abounded  in  grand 
ideas  and  noble  sentiments,  expressed  in  language  simple, 
bold,  and  vigorous.  The  finest  examples  of  his  eloquence 
stand  alone,  and  unrivalled  ; but  he  flourished  too  early,  to 
enjoy  the  privilege  of  transmitting  the  full  fruits  of  his 
genius  to  posterity.1 

He  was  surrounded  and  followed  by  a group  of  orators, 
who  have  made  their  time  the  classic  age  of  Par-  Mr.  Pitt, 
liamentary  history.  Foremost  amongst  them  was  his  ex- 
traordinary son,  William  Pitt.  Inferior  to  his  father  in  the 
highest  qualities  of  an  orator,  — he  surpassed  him  in  argument, 
in  knowledge, — in  intellectual  force,  and  mastery.  Magnilo- 
quent in  his  style,  his  oratory  sometimes  attained  the  elevation 
of  eloquence ; but  rarely  rose  above  the  level  of  debate. 
His  composition  was  felicitously  described  by  Windham,  as  a 
“ State  paper  style.”  He  may  be  called  the  founder  of  the 
modern  school  of  Parliamentary  debaters.  His  speeches 
were  argumentative,  admirably  clear  in  statement,  skilfully 
arranged,  vigorous  and  practical.  Always  marked  by  rare 
ability,  they  yet  lacked  the  higher  inspirations  of  genius. 
In  sarcasm  he  had  few  equals.  Ho  one  held  so  absolute 
a sway  over  the  House  of  Commons.  In  voice  and  manner, 
he  was  dignified  and  commanding.  The  minister  was  de- 
clared in  every  word  he  uttered ; and  the  consciousness  of 

1 Some  of  his  earlier  speeches  were  composed  by  Dr.  Johnson  from  the 
notes  of  others ; and  even  his  later  speeches  were  delivered  when  reporting 
was  still  very  imperfect. 


452 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


power,  while  it  sustained  the  dignity  of  his  oratory,  increased 
its  effect  upon  his  audience. 

The  eloquence  of  his  great  rival,  Mr.  Fox,  was  as  dif- 
Mr.  Fox.  ferent  as  were  his  political  opinions  and  position. 
His  success  was  due  to  his  natural  genius,  and  to  the  great 
principles  of  liberty  which  he  advocated.  F amiliar  with  the 
best  classical  models,  he  yet  too  often  disdained  the  studied 
art  of  the  orator;  and  was  negligent  and  unequal  in  his 
efforts.  But  when  his  genius  was  aroused  within  him,  he 
was  matchless  in  demonstrative  argument,  in  force,  in  wit, 
in  animation,  and  spontaneous  eloquence.  More  than  any 
orator  of  his  time,  he  carried  with  him  the  feelings  and  con- 
viction of  his  audience ; and  the  spirit  and  reality  of  the 
man,  charm  us  scarcely  less  in  his  printed  speeches.  Want- 
ing in  discretion,  — he  was  frequently  betrayed  into  intem- 
perance of  language  and  opinion ; but  his  generous  ardor 
in  the  cause  of  liberty  still  appeals  to  our  sympathies ; and 
his  broad  constitutional  principles  are  lessons  of  political 
wisdom. 

Mr.  Fox  had  been  from  his  earliest  youth,  the  friend  and 
Mr.  Burke,  disciple  of  Mr.  Burke,  — and  vast  was  the  intel- 
lect of  his  master.  In  genius,  learning,  and  accomplish- 
ments, Mr.  Burke  had  no  equal  either  among  the  statesmen, 
or  writers  of  his  time  ; yet  he  was  inferior,  as  an  orator,  to 
the  three  great  men  who  have  been  already  noticed.  His 
speeches,  like  his  writings,  bear  witness  to  his  deep  philoso- 
phy, his  inexhaustible  stores  of  knowledge,  and  redundant 
imagination.  They  are  more  studied,  and  more  often  quoted 
than  the  speeches  of  any  other  statesman.  His  metaphors 
and  aphorisms  are  as  familiar  to  our  ears,  as  those  of  Lord 
Bacon.  But  transcendent  as  were  his  gifts,  they  were  too 
often  disfigured  by  extravagance.  He  knew  not  how  to 
restrain  them  within  the  bounds  of  time  and  place ; or  to 
adapt  them  to  the  taste  of  a popular  assembly,  which  loves 
directness  and  simplicity.  His  addresses  were  dissertations 
rather  than  speeches.  To  influence  men,  an  orator  must 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


453 


appeal  directly  to  their  reason,  their  feelings,  and  present 
temper ; but  Mr.  Burke,  while  he  astonished  them  with  his 
prodigious  faculties,  wearied  them  with  refinements  and  im- 
agery,  in  which  they  often  lost  the  thread  of  his  argument. 

Mr.  Sheridan  is  entitled  to  the  next  place  in  this  group 
of  orators.  His  brilliancy,  and  pointed  wit,  — - Mr.  Sheridan, 
his  spirited  declamation  and  effective  delivery,  — astonished 
and  delighted  his  audience.  Such  was  the  effect  of  his  cele- 
brated speech  on  the  fourth,  or  “ Begum  charge  ” against 
Warren  Hastings,  that  the  peers  and  strangers  joined  with 
the  House  in  a “ tumult  of  applause  ; ” and  could  not  be  re- 
strained from  clapping  their  hands  in  ecstasy.  The  House 
adjourned,  in  order  to  recover  its  self-possession.  Mr.  Pitt 
declared  that  this  speech  “ surpassed  all  the  eloquence  of 
ancient  or  modern  times,  and  possessed  everything  that 
genius  or  art  could  furnish,  to  agitate  or  control  the  human 
mind.”  Mr.  Fox  said,  “ eloquent  indeed  it  was  ; so  much 
so,  that  all  he  had  ever  heard,  — all  he  had  ever  read,  dwin- 
dled into  nothing,  and  vanished  like  vapor  before  the  sun.” 
Mr.  Sheridan  afterwards  addressed  the  Lords,  in  Westmin- 
ster Hall,  on  the  same  charge,  for  four  days ; and  Mr.  Burke 
said  of  his  address,  “ that  no  species  of  oratory,  — no  kind 
of  eloquence  which  had  been  heard  in  ancient  or  modern 
times  ; nothing  which  the  acuteness  of  the  bar,  the  dignity 
of  the  senate,  or  the  morality  of  the  pulpit  could  furnish, 
was  equal  to  what  they  had  that  day  heard  in  Westminster 
Hall.”  But  while  particular  efforts  of  this  accomplished 
speaker  met  with  extraordinary  success,  he  was  restrained 
by  want  of  statesmanship  and  character,  from  commanding 
a position  in  the  House  of  Commons,  equal  to  his  great  tal- 
ents as  an  orator.1 

1 Lord  Byron  said  of  him : “ Whatever  Sheridan  has  done,  or  chosen  to 
do,  has  been,  par  excellence , always  the  best  of  its  kind.  He  has  written 
the  best  comedy,  the  best  opera,  the  best  farce  (it  is  only  too  good  for  a 
farce),  and  the  best  address  (the  monologue  on  Garrick),  and  to  crown  all, 
delivered  the  very  best  oration,  the  famous  Begum  speech,  ever  conceived 
or  heard  in  this  country.’*  * 


454 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


The  qualities  of  Mr.  Windham  were  of  another  class. 
Mr.  wind-  Superior  to  the  last  in  education  and  attainments, 
ham-  and  little  inferior  in  wit,  he  never  achieved  suc- 

cesses so  dazzling ; yet  he  maintained  a higher  place  among 
the  debaters  of  his  age.  Though  his  pretensions  to  the 
higher  qualities  of  a statesman  were  inconsiderable,  his  nu- 
merous talents  and  virtues  graced  a long  and  distinguished 
public  life. 

Lord  Erskine  was  not  inferior,  as  an  orator,  to  the  great- 
Lord  Erskine.  est  of  his  contemporaries ; but  the  senate  was  not 
the  scene  of  his  most  remarkable  triumphs.  His  speeches 
at  the  bar  combined  the  highest  characteristics  of  eloquence, 

— fire,  — force,  — courage,  — earnestness,  — the  closest 
argument,  — imagery,  — noble  sentiments,  — great  truths 
finely  conceived  and  applied,  — a diction  pure  and  simple, 

— action  the  most  graceful  and  dignified.  But  none  of  these 
great  qualities  were  used  for  display.  They  were  all  held, 
by  the  severity  of  his  taste,  and  the  mastery  of  his  logic,  in 
due  subordination  to  the  single  design  of  persuading  and 
convincing  his  audience.  The  natural  graces  of  his  person 
completed  the  orator.  Lord  Brougham  has  finely  portrayed 
“that  noble  figure,  every  look  of  whose  countenance  is 
expressive,  every  motion  of  whose  form  graceful ; an  eye 
that  sparkles  and  pierces,  and  almost  assures  victory,  while 
it  6 speaks  audience  ere  the  tongue.’  ” 

Had  his  triumphs  been  as  signal  in  the  senate,  he  would 
have  been  the  first  orator  of  his  age.  In  that  arena  there 
were  men  greater  than  himself ; but  he  was  admitted  to  an 
eminent  place  amongst  them.  He  fought  for  many  years, 
side  by  side,  with  Mr.  F ox ; and  his  rare  gifts  were  ever 
exerted  in  the  cause  of  freedom. 

To  complete  the  glittering  assemblage  of  orators  who 
other  great  adorned  the  age  of  Chatham  and  of  Pitt,  many 
orators*  remarkable  figures  yet  stand  in  the  foreground. 
We  are  struck  with  the  happy  wit  and  resources  of  Lord 
North,  — the  finished  precision  of  Wedderburn,  — the  rude 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


455 


force  of  Thurlow,  — the  refinement  and  dignity  of  Lord 
Mansfield,  — the  constitutional  wisdom  of  Lord  Camden,  — 
the  logical  subtilty  of  Dunning,  — the  severe  reason  of  Sir 
William  Grant,  — the  impassioned  gentleness  of  Wilber- 
force,  — and  the  statesmanlike  vigor  of  Lord  Grenville. 

The  succession  of  orators  has  still  been  maintained.  Some 
of  Mr.  Pitt’s  contemporaries  continued  to  flourish  Mr.  Grattan, 
many  years  after  he  had  passed  from  the  scene  of  his  glory  ; 
and  others  were  but  commencing  their  career,  when  his  own 
was  drawing  to  its  close.  He  lived  to  hear  the  eloquence 
of  Mr.  Grattan,  which  had  long  been  the  pride  of  his  own 
country.  It  was  rich  in  imagination,  in  vehemence,  in  meta- 
phor, and  pointed  epigram.  Though  a stranger  to  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament,  his  genius  and  patriotism  at  once  com- 
manded a position,  scarcely  less  distinguished  than  that 
which  he  had  won  in  the  Parliament  of  Ireland.  English- 
men, familiar  with  the  eloquence  of  their  own  countrymen, 
hailed  his  accession  to  their  ranks,  as  one  of  the  most  auspi- 
cious results  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Canning’s  brilliant  talents,  which  had  been  matured 
under  Mr.  Pitt,  shone  forth  in  full  splendor,  after  Mr.  Canning, 
the  death  of  that  statesman.  In  wit  and  sarcasm,  in  elegant 
scholarship,  in  lively  fancy,  and  in  the  graces  of  a finished 
composition,  he  was  unrivalled.  His  imagery,  — if  less 
original  than  that  of  Chatham,  Burke,  and  Erskine,  — was 
wrought  up  with  consummate  skill,  and  expressed  in  lan- 
guage of  extraordinary  beauty.  For  more  than  twenty 
years,  he  was  the  most  successful  and  accomplished  debater 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  — delighting  his  friends  with  his 
dazzling  wit,  — and  confounding  his  opponents  with  inex- 
haustible repartee. 

Earl  Grey  had  also  risen  to  distinction  in  the  days  of  Mr. 
Pitt ; but  the  memorable  achievements  of  his  Lord  Grey, 
riper  age,  associate  him  with  a later  generation.  In  dignity 
and  high  purpose,  — in  earnest  gravity  of  argument  and  ex- 
position, he  was  the  very  model  of  a statesman.  His  ora- 


456 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


tory  bespoke  his  inflexible  virtues,  and  consistency.  While 
his  proud  bearing  would  have  pronounced  him  the  leader  of 
an  aristocracy,  and  the  mouthpiece  of  his  order,  — he  de- 
voted a long  life  to  the  service  of  the  people. 

Lord  Eldon  exercised  so  important  an  influence  upon  po- 
Lord  Eldon,  litical  affairs,  that  he  cannot  be  omitted  from  this 
group  of  orators,  though  his  claims  to  oratory  alone,  would 
not  have  entitled  him  to  a place  amongst  them.  From  the 
time  when  he  had  been  Mr.  Pitt’s  Solicitor-General,  until 
he  left  the  woolsack,  — a period  of  nearly  forty  years,  — 
his  high  offices  gave  authority  to  his  parliamentary  efforts. 
For  twenty  years  he  led  captive  the  judgment  of  the  House 
of  Lords : but  assuredly  neither  by  eloquence,  nor  argument 
in  debate.  Tears  and  appeals  to  his  conscience  were  his 
only  eloquence,  — a dread  of  innovation  his  only  argument. 
Even  upon  legal  questions,  the  legislature  obtained  little 
light  from  his  discourses.  The  main  service  which  posterity 
can  derive  from  his  speeches,  is  to  note  how  recently  preju- 
dice and  errors  were  maintained  in  high  places,  and  how 
trivial  the  reasons  urged  in  their  defence. 

Lord  Plunket,  like  his  great  countryman,  Mr.  Grattan, 
Lord  Piunket.  had  gained  a high  reputation  for  eloquence  in  the 
Parliament  of  Ireland,  which  he  not  only  sustained,  but  ad- 
vanced in  the  British  House  of  Commons.  He  had  risen 
to  eminence  at  the  bar  of  Ireland,  where  his  style  of  speak- 
ing is  said  to  have  resembled  that  of  Erskine.  In  debate,  — 
if  displaying  less  originality  and  genius  than  Mr.  Grattan, 
and  less  brilliancy  than  Mr.  Canning,  — he  was  as  powerful 
in  sustained  argument,  as  felicitous  in  illustration,  and  as 
forcible  and  pointed  in  language,  as  any  orator  of  his  time. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  was  a striking  counterpart  of  Mr.  Pitt. 
Sir  Robert  At  first  liis  extraordinary  abilities  in  debate  had 
PeeL  been  outshone  by  the  dazzling  lustre  of  Mr.  Can- 

ning, and  subdued  by  the  fiery  vehemence  of  Mr.  Brough- 
am ; but  his  great  powers,  always  improving  and  expand- 
ing, could  not  fail  to  be  acknowledged.  His  oratory,  like 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


457 


that  of  Mr.  Pitt,  was  the  perfection  of  debate.  He  rarely 
aspired  to  eloquence  ; but  in  effective  declamation, — in  close 
argument,  — in  rapid  appreciation  of  the  points  to  be  as- 
sailed or  defended,  — in  dexterity,  — in  tact,  — and  in  offi- 
cial and  Parliamentary  knowledge,  he  excelled  every  debater 
of  his  time.  Even  when  his  talents  were  exercised  in  main- 
taining the  political  errors  of  his  age  and  party,  it  is  impos- 
sible not  to  admire  the  consummate  skill  with  which  he  de- 
fended his  untenable  positions,  against  assailants  who  had 
truth  on  their  side.  Arguments  which  provoke  a smile, 
when  we  read  them  in  the  words  of  Lord  Eldon,  surprise  us 
with  their  force  and  semblance  of  truth,  when  urged  by  Sir 
Robert  Peel. 

The  oratory  of  a man  so  great  as  the  Duke  of  Wellington, 
was  the  least  of  all  of  his  claims  to  renown.  First  The  Duke  of 
in  war,  in  diplomacy,  and  in  the  councils  of  his  Wellmston- 
sovereign,  — his  speeches  in  Parliament  were  but  the  natural 
expression  of  his  experience,  opinions  and  purposes.  His 
mind  being  clear,  — his  views  practical  and  sagacious,  — and 
his  objects  singularly  direct,  — his  speaking  was  plain,  and 
to  the  point.  Without  fluency  or  art,  and  without  skill  in 
argument,  he  spoke  out  what  his  strong  sense  and  judgment 
prompted.  He  addressed  an  audience,  whom  there  was  no 
need  to  convince.  They  hung  upon  his  words,  and  waited 
upon  his  opinions ; and  followed  as  he  led.  The  reasons  of 
such  a man  were  often  weighty ; but  they  were  reasons 
which  had  determined  his  own  course,  and  might  justify  it  to 
others,  rather  than  arguments  to  prove  it  right,  or  to  combat 
opponents. 

The  House  of  Commons  was  not  the  field  for  the  best 
examples  of  Mr.  O’Connell’s  oratory.  He  stood  Mr  0,Con_ 
there  at  a disadvantage,  — with  a cause  to  uphold  nelL 
which  all  but  a small  band  of  followers  condemned  as  false 
and  unpatriotic,  — and  with  strong  feelings  against  him, 
which  his  own  conduct  had  provoked ; yet  even  there,  the 
massive  powers  of  the  man  were  not  unfrequently  displayed. 


458 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


A perfect  master  of  every  form  of  argument,  — potent  in 
ridicule,  sarcasm  and  invective,  — rich  in  imagination  and 
humor,  — bold  and  impassioned,  or  gentle,  persuasive  and 
pathetic,  — he  combined  all  the  powers  of  a consummate  or- 
ator. His  language  was  simple  and  forcible,  as  became  his 
thoughts  ; 1 his  voice  extraordinary  for  compass  and  flexibil- 
ity. But  his  great  powers  were  disfigured  by  coarseness,  by 
violence,  by  cunning,  and  audacious  license.  At  the  bar, 
and  on  the  platform,  he  exhibited  the  greatest,  but  the  most 
opposite  endowments.  When  he  had  thrown  open  the  doors 
of  the  legislature  to  himself  and  his  Roman  Catholic  breth- 
ren, the  great  work  of  his  life  was  done  ; yet  he  wanted 
nothing  but  the  moral  influence  of  a good  cause,  and  honest 
patriotism,  to  have  taken  one  of  the  highest  places  in  the 
senate. 

His  countryman,  Mr.  Sheil,  displayed  powers  singularly 
Mr.  Sheii.  unlike  those  of  his  great  master.  He  was  an  or- 
ator of  extraordinary  brilliancy,  — imaginative,  witty,  and 
epigrammatic.  Many  parts  of  his  speeches  were  exquisite 
compositions,  — clothing  his  fancy  in  the  artistic  language 
of  the  poet.  Such  passages  may  be  compared  with  many 
similar  examples,  in  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Canning.  He  was 
equally  happy  in  antithesis,  and  epigram.  He  excelled,  in- 
deed, in  the  art  and  graces  of  oratorical  composition.  But 
his  thoughts  were  wanting  in  depth  and  reality  : his  manner 
was  extravagant  in  its  vehemence : his  action  melodramatic  ; 
and  his  voice,  always  shrill,  was  raised  in  his  impassioned 
efforts,  to  a harsh  and  discordant  shriek. 

This  second  group  of  contemporary  orators  would  be  in- 
complete, without  some  other  striking  characters 

Other  con-  _ 

temporary  who  played  their  part  amongst  them.  We  would 
point  to  the  classical  elegance  of  Lord  Wellesley, 
— the  readiness  and  dexterity  of  Perceval,  — the  high  bear- 
ing and  courage  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  — the  practical  vigor 

1 It  was  happily  said  of  him  by  Mr.  Sheil,  “ He  brings  forth  a brood  of 
lusty  thoughts,  without  a rag  to  cover  them.” 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


459 


of  Tierney,  — the  severe  virtues,  and  high  intellect  of  Ro- 
milly,  — the  learned  philosophy  of  Francis  Horner,  — the 
didactic  fulness  of  Mackintosh, — the  fruitful  science  of 
Huskisson,  — the  lucid  argument  of  F ollet,  and  the  brilliant 
declamation  of  Macaulay. 

All  these  have  passed  away ; but  there  are  orators  still 
living,  who  have  contended  in  the  same  debates,  Living  ora- 
and  have  won  an  equal  fame.  Their  portraiture  tors‘ 
will  adorn  future  histories ; but  who  is  there  that  will  not  at 
once  fill  up  this  picture  of  the  past,  with  the  transparent 
clearness,  and  masterly  force  of  Lord  Lyndhurst,  and  the 
matchless  powers  and  accomplishments  of  Lord  Brougham  ? 

Progressive  excellence  in  so  divine  an  art  as  oratary,  is  no 
more  to  be  achieved  than  in  poetry  or  painting, — improved 
in  sculpture  or  architecture.  Genius  is  of  All  andTaste  in 
ages.  But  if  orators  of  our  own  time  have  been  debate- 
unable  to  excel  their  great  models,  a candid  criticism  will 
scarcely  assign  them  an  inferior  place.  Their  style  has 
changed,  — as  the  conditions  under  which  they  speak,  are 
altered.  They  address  themselves  more  to  the  reason,  and 
less  to  the  imagination,  the  feelings  and  the  passions  of  their 
audience,  than  the  orators  of  a former  age.  They  confront, 
not  only  the  members  of  their  own  body,  but  the  whole  peo- 
ple, — who  are  rather  to  be  convinced  by  argument,  than 
persuaded  by  the  fascination  of  the  orator.  In  their  lan- 
guage, there  is  less  of  study  and  artistic  finish,  than  in  the 
oratory  of  an  earlier  period.  Their  perorations  are  not  com- 
posed, after  frequent  recitals  of  Demosthenes ; 1 but  give 
direct  and  forcible  expression  to  their  own  opinions  and  sen- 
timents. Their  speaking  is  suited  to  the  subjects  of  debate, 
— to  the  stir  and  pressure  of  public  affairs,  - — and  to  the 
taste  and  temper  of  their  audience.  The  first  principles  of 

1 “ I composed  the  peroration  of  my  speech  for  the  Queen,  in  the  Lords, 
after  reading  and  repeating  Demosthenes  for  three  or  four  weeks,  and  I 
composed  it  twenty  times  over  at  least,  and  it  certainly  succeeded  in  a 
very  extraordinary  degree,  and  far  above  any  merits  of  its  own.”  — Lord 
Brougham  to  Zachary  Macaulay,  as  advice  to  his  celebrated  son,  March 
10th,  1823. 


460 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


government  are  no  longer  in  dispute : the  liberties  of  the 
people  are  safe : the  oppression  of  the  law  is  unknown. 
Accordingly,  the  councils  of  the  state  encourage  elevated 
reason,  rather  than  impassioned  oratory.  Every  age  has 
its  own  type  of  excellence ; and  if  the  Nestors  of  our  own 
time  insist  upon  the  degeneracy  of  living  orators,  perhaps 
a more  cultivated  taste  may  now  condemn  as  rant,  some 
passages  from  the  speeches  of  Burke  and  Chatham,  which 
their  contemporaries  accepted  as  eloquence. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  claims  of  different  generations, 
to  the  highest  examples  of  oratory,  the  men  of  our  own  age 
have  advanced  in  political  knowledge,  and  statesmanship ; 
and  their  deliberations  have  produced  results  more  beneficial 
to  the  people.  They  have  also  improved  in  temper  and 
moderation.  In  the  earlier  years  of  George  III.,  party 
spirit  and  personal  animosities,  — not  yet  restrained  by  the 
courtesies  of  private  society,  or  refined  by  good  taste,  — too 
often  gave  rise  to  scenes  discreditable  to  the  British  senate. 
The  debates  were  as  coarse  and  scurrilous  as  the  press. 

In  these  excesses,  Lord  Chatham  was  both  sinned  against, 
„ and  sinning.  In  the  debate  upon  the  Indemnity 

Coarse  per-  ° r J 

sonalities  of  Bill  in  1766,  the  Duke  of  Richmond  “hoped  the 
nobility  would  not  be  browbeaten  by  an  insolent 
minister  ” 1 — a speech  which  Horace  Walpole  alleges  to 
have  driven  the  Earl  from  the  House  of  Lords,  during  the 
remainder  of  his  unfortunate  administration.2  Some  years 
later,  we  find  Lord  Chatham  himself  using  language  repug- 
nant to  order,  and  decency  of  debate.  On  the  1st  Febru- 
ary, 1775,  he  thus  addressed  the  ministers:  — “Who  can 
wonder  that  you  should  put  a negative  upon  any  measure 
which  must  annihilate  your  power,  deprive  you  of  your 
emoluments,  and  at  once  reduce  you  to  that  state  of  insig- 
nificance, for  which  God  and  nature  designed  you.”  3 A 
few  days  later,  the  House  of  Lords  became  the  scene  of  per- 
sonalities still  more  disorderly.  Lord  Shelburne  having  in- 

1 Dec.  10th,  1766. 

2 Walpole’s  Mem.  ii.  410,  411. 


s Pari.  Hist,  xviii.  211. 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


461 


sinuated  that  Lord  Mansfield  had  been  concerned  in  drawing 
up  the  bills  of  the  previous  session  relating  to  America,  Lord 
Mansfield  rising  in  a passion,  “ charged  the  last  noble  Lord 
with  uttering  the  most  gross  falsehoods,”  and  said  that  “ the 
charge  was  as  unjust,  as  it  was  maliciously  and  indecently 
urged.”  In  the  same  debate  Lord  Lyttelton  imputed  to 
Lord  Camden  “ professional  subtlety  and  low  cunning.” 1 
Again  on  the  5th  December,  1777,  we  find  Lord  Chatham 
accusing  Earl  Gower  of  “ petulance  and  malignant  misrep- 
resentation.” 2 

No  man  so  often  outraged  propriety  and  good  taste  as 
Edmund  Burke.  His  excessive  love  of  imagery  and  illus- 
tration, often  displayed  itself  in  the  grossest  forms.  Who  is 
not  familiar  with  his  coarse  portrait  of  Lord  North,  “ extend- 
ing his  right  leg  a full  yard  before  his  left,  rolling  his  flam- 
ing eyes,  and  moving  his  ponderous  frame  ? ” or  with  the 
offensive  indecency,  with  which  he  likened  Lord  North’s 
ministry  to  a party  of  courtesans  ? 3 

We  find  Colonel  Barre  denouncing  the  conduct  of  Lord 
North  as  “ most  indecent  and  scandalous  ; ” and  Lord  North 
complaining  of  this  language  as  “ extremely  uncivil,  brutal, 
and  insolent,”  until  he  was  called  to  order,  and  obliged  to 
apologize.4  We  find  Mr.  Fox  threatening  that  Lord  North’s 
ministry  should  expiate  their  crimes  on  the  scaffold,  and  in- 
sinuating that  they  were  in  the  pay  of  France.5  Nay,  trans- 
gressing the  bounds  of  political  discussion,  and  assailing  pri- 
vate character,  he  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  he  should 
consider  it  unsafe  to  be  alone  with  Lord  North,  in  a room ; 6 
and  would  not  believe  his  word.7  Even  of  the  king,  he 
spoke  with  indecorous  violence.8 

1 Feb.  7th,  1775;  Pari.  Hist,  xviii.  276,  282. 

2 Ibid.  xix.  507. 

3 Feb.  5th,  1770;  Cavendish  Deb.  i.  441. 

4 Feb.  22d,  1852;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1050. 

5 Nov.  27th,  1781. 

6 Lord  Brougham’s  Life  of  Lord  North;  Works,  iii.  56. 

7 20th  March,  1782;  Pari.  Hist.  xxii.  1216. 

8 Wraxall’s  Mem.  ii.  255-258,  517. 


462 


HOUSE  OF  COMMONS. 


There  have  since  been  altercations  of  equal  bitterness. 
Rarer  out-  The  deepest  wounds  which  sarcasm  and  invective 
mm^nrecTnt  cou^  inflict,  have  been  unsparingly  dealt  to  politi- 
times.  cal  opponents.  Combatants  “ have  sharpened  their 
tongues  like  a serpent ; adder’s  poison  is  under  their  lips.” 
But  good  taste  and  a stricter  order  in  debate,  have  restrained 
the  grosser  outrages  to  decency.  The  weapons  of  debate 
have  been  as  keen  and  trenchant  as  ever;  but  they  have 
been  wielded  according  to  the  laws  of  a more  civilized  war- 
fare. The  first  years  of  the  Reformed  Parliament  threatened 
the  revival  of  scenes  as  violent  and  disorderly  as  any  in  the 
last  century  ; 1 but  as  the  host  of  new  members  became  disci- 
plined by  experience,  and  the  fierce  passions  of  that  period 
subsided,  the  accustomed  decorum  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  restored. 

Indeed,  as  the  Commons  have  advanced  in  power  and 
increased  au  freedom,  they  have  shown  greater  self-restraint, 
thority  of  the  and  a more  ready  obedience  to  the  authority  of 
the  Speaker.  They  have  always  been  more  or- 
derly in  their  proceedings  than  the  Lords  ; and  the  contrast 
which  the  scenes  of  the  first  twenty  years  of  George  III. 
present  to  those  of  later  times,  can  scarcely  fail  to  strike  an 
attentive  student  of  Parliamentary  history. 

What  would  now  be  thought  of  such  scenes  as  those  en- 
acted in  the  time  of  Sir  John  Cust,  Sir  Fletcher  Norton, 
and  Mr.  Cornwall,  — of  rebukes  and  interruptions,2  — of 
unseemly  altercations  with  the  Chair,  — of  the  words  of  the 
Speaker  himself  being  taken  down,  — and  of  a motion  that 


1 Mr.  Sheil  and  Lord  Althorp,  5th  Feb.  1834.  — Hansard's  Deb.,  3d  Ser., 

xxi.  146.  Mr.  Rigby  Wason  and  Lord  Sandon,  12th  March,  1834.  — Ibid. 

xxii.  116.  Mr.  Romayne  and  Mr.  O’Connell,  6th  May,  1834.  — Ibid,  xxiii. 
24.  Mr.  Hume  and  Mr.  Charlton,  3d  June,  1835.  — Ibid,  xxvii.  485.  22d 

July,  1835.  — Ibid.  879. 

2 Scenes  between  Mr.  Rigby  and  the  Speaker,  Sir  John  Cust,  in  1762. 

— Cavendish  Deb.  i.  342.  And  between  Sir  J.  Cavendish  and  the  same 
Speaker,  March  9th,  1769.  — Ibid.  567.  Mr.  Burke  and  the  same,  April 
15th,  1769.  — Ibid.  878.  Scenes  with  Sir  Fletcher  Norton,  Dec.  14th,  1770. 

— Ibid.  ii.  168.  March  12th  and  27th,  1771.  — Ibid.  ii.  390,  476. 


PARLIAMENTARY  ORATORY. 


463 


they  were  disorderly  and  dangerous  to  the  freedom  of  de- 
bate ? 1 

In  concluding  this  sketch  of  Parliamentary  oratory,  a few 
words  may  be  added  concerning  the  general  stand-  General 
ard  of  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons.  If  standard  of 
that  standard  be  measured  by  the  excellence  of 
the  best  speakers  at  different  periods,  we  have  no  cause  to 
be  ashamed  of  the  age  in  which  our  living  orators  and  states- 
men have  flourished.  But  judged  by  another  test,  this  age 
has  been  exposed  to  disparaging  criticisms.  When  few  save 
the  ablest  men  contended  in  debate,  and  the  rank  and 
file  were  content  to  cheer  and  vote,  a certain  elevation  of 
thought  and  language  was,  perhaps,  more  generally  sus- 
tained. But,  of  late  years,  independent  members,  — active, 
informed,  and  business-like,  — representing  large  interests, — 
more  responsible  to  constituents,  and  less  devoted  to  party 
chiefs,  — living  in  the  public  eye,  and  ambitious  of  distinc- 
tion, — have  eagerly  pressed  forward,  and  claimed  a hear- 
ing. Excellence  in  debate  has  suffered  from  the  multiplied 
demands  of  public  affairs.  Yet  in  speeches  without  preten- 
sions to  oratory,  are  found  strong  common  sense,  practical 
knowledge,  and  an  honesty  of  purpose  that  was  wanting  in 
the  silent  legions  of  former  times.  The  debates  mark  the 
activity,  and  earnest  spirit  of  a representative  assembly.  At 
all  times  there  have  been  some  speakers  of  a lower  grade, 
— without  instruction,  taste,  or  elevation.  Formerly  their 
commonplace  effusions  were  not  reported : now  they  are 
freely  read,  and  scornfully  criticised.  They  are  put  to 
shame  by  the  writers  of  the  daily  press,  who  discuss  the 
same  subjects  with  superior  knowledge  and  ability.  Falling 
below  the  educated  mind  of  the  country,  they  bring  discredit 
upon  the  House  of  Commons,  while  they  impair  its  legisla- 
tive efficiency.  But  worse  evils  than  these  have  been  over- 
come ; and  we  may  hope  to  see  this  abuse  of  free  discussion 
eventually  ^ corrected,  by  a less  tolerant  endurance  on  the 
part  of  the  House,  and  by  public  reprobation  and  contempt. 

1 Feb.  16th,  1770;  Pari.  Hist.  xvi.  807. 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


Abercorn,  Earl  of,  his  rights  as 
peer  of  Great  Britain  and  of  Scot- 
land, 234. 

Abercromby,  Mr.,  his  motion  on 
Scotch  representation,  286. 

Aberdeen,  Earl  of,  the  Reform  Bill 
of  his  ministry,  357. 

A,  Court,  Colonel,  deprived  of  com- 
mand for  votes  in  parliament,  36. 

Addington,  Mr.,  mediates  between 
Geo.  III.  and  Pitt  on  the  Catholic 
question,  86-88 ; forms  an  admin- 
istration, 88 ; official  difficulties 
caused  by  the  King’s  illness  at 
this  juncture,  163-165;  his  rela- 
tions with  the  King,  89;  resigns 
office,  91 ; leads  the  “ King’s 
friends,”  90;  takes  office  under 
Pitt,  91;  made  a peer,  ib. ; his 
declaration  as  to  the  King’s  com- 
petency for  business,  167 ; permits 
debate  on  notice  of  motion,  319,  n. 
See  Sidmouth,  Viscount. 

Addresses  to  the  crown,  from  parlia- 
ment, respecting  peace  and  war, 
or  the  dissolution  of  parliament, 
430,  431;  from  the  people,  for  a 
dissolution,  432;  Lord  Camden’s 
opinion,  433;  this  right  affirmed 
by  vote  of  the  Commons,  434. 

Admiralty  Court,  judge  of,  disquali- 
fied from  parliament,  299. 

Althorp,  Lord,  the  Melbourne  min- 
istry dismissed,  on  his  removal 
from  the  Commons,  125. 

American  colonies,  the  war  with, 
stopped  by  the  Commons,  58.  430. 

Anne,  Queen,  land  revenues  at  her 
accession,  189 ; their  alienation  re- 
strained, 190;  her  civil  list  and 
debts,  192 ; increase  of  peerage 
during  her  reign,  224;  created 
VOL.  i.  30 


twelve  peers  in  one  day,  ib. ; hold- 
ers of  offices  disqualified  by  Act 
of  Settlement,  295;  popular  ad- 
dresses to,  praying  a dissolution, 
433. 

Appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  House 
of  Lords’  bill,  242. 

Appropriation  of  grants  by  parlia- 
ment, resolution  against  issue  of 
unappropriated  money,  72;  com- 
mencement of  the  system,  440; 
misappropriation  of  grants  by 
Chas.  II.,  191. 

Arcot,  Nabob  of,  represented  in  par- 
liament by  several  members,  315. 

Army  and  Navy  Service  Bill  opposed 
by  Geo.  III.,  93;  withdrawn,  95. 

Assizes,  commission  for  holding,  is- 
sued during  Geo.  III.’s  incapacity, 


Baker,  Mr.,  his  motion  against  Geo. 
III.’s  secret  counsellors,  67. 

Ballot,  vote  by,  motions  for  adoption 
of,  330,  352. 

Baronetage,  past  and  present  num- 
bers of,  260. 

Barr£,  Colonel,  deprived  of  com- 
mand for  votes  in  parliament,  36 ; 
resigns  his  commission,  51;  passed 
over  in  a brevet,  ib. 

u Bedchamber  Question,  the,”  31. 

Bedford,  Duke  of,  remonstrates 
against  Lord  Bute’s  influence,  40. 

Berkeley,  Mr.  H.,  his  motions  for  the 
ballot",  354. 

Bishops,  their  number  in  the  House, 
242;  attempts  to  exclude  them, 
243;  their  present  position,  245; 
their  votes  upon  the  Reform  Bill, 
250,  251;  Irish  representative 
bishops,  229. 


466 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


Blandford,  Marquess  of,  his  schemes 
of  reform,  326. 

Bolingbroke,  Lord,  his  theory  of  “ a 
patriot  king,”  23. 

Boroughs,  different  rights  of  election 
in,  266,  283 ; nomination  boroughs. 
265,  267,  283,  288,  289;  numbers 
of  voters  in,  267,  283,  289;  seats 
for,  bought  or  rented,  270,  276 ; 
advertised  for  sale,  270 ; prices  of, 
271,  272,  275,  276,  292;  law  passed 
against  the  sale  of  boroughs,  276; 
government  boroughs,  277. 

“Borough-brokers,”  272. 

Boyer,  reports  debates  in  parlia- 
ment, 391. 

Brand,  Mr.,  his  motion  against  the 
pledge  required  of  the  Grenville 
ministry,  96. 

Bribery  at  elections,  prior  to  parlia- 
mentary reform,  267 ; commenced 
in  reign  of  Charles  II.,  268;  sup- 
ported by  George  III.,  274,  276; 
acts  to  restrain,  264,  270,  274,  277 ; 
bribery  since  the  Reform  Act,  341 ; 
later  bribery  acts,  344,  347 ; proof 
of  agency,  344;  inquiry  by  com- 
mission, 345;  gross  cases,  346; 
travelling  expenses,  347;  policy 
of  legislation,  348. 

Bribery  of  members  of  parliament. 
See  Members  of  the  House  of 
Commons. 

Brougham,  Lord,  his  motion  against 
influence  of  the  crown,  117 ; opin- 
ion on  life  peerages,  238 ; advises, 
as  chancellor,  the  creation  of  new 
peers,  251;  his  motion  for  reform, 
332;  on  the  duration  of  parlia- 
ment, 349. 

Buckingham,  Marquess  of,  refuses  to 
transmit  the  Irish  address  to  the 
Prince  of  Wales,  162. 

Burdett,  Sir  F.,  his  schemes  of  re- 
form, 322,  323;  committed  for  con- 
tempt, 409;  resists  the  warrant, 
422;  apprehended  by  force,  ib. ; 
brings  actions  for  redress,  423. 

Burgage  tenure,  franchise,  266. 

Burke,  Mr.,  his  scheme  of  economic 
reform,  54,  197,  211 ; drew  up  the 
prince’s  reply  to  Pitt’s  scheme  of 
a regency,  154 ; his  proposal  for 
sale  of  crown  lands,  208;  for  re- 
duction of  pension  list,  211;  op- 
poses parliamentary  reform,  320; 
his  ideal  of  representation,  362; 
opposes  Wilkes’s  expulsion,  372; 


his  remarks  on  pledges  to  con- 
stituents, 418;  character  of  his 
oratory,  452,  461. 

Bute,  county,  absurd  case  of  election 
for,  285. 

Bute,  Earl  of,  his  unconstitutional 
instructions  to  George  III.,  22; 
aids  his  personal  interference  in 
government,  28 ; his  rapid  rise,  30 ; 
becomes  premier,  31 ; arbitrary 
conduct,  ib.  32 ; and  parliamentary 
bribery,  301,  304;  his  fall,  34;  se- 
cret influence  over  the  King,  34, 
38-40 ; retires  from  court,  35. 

Cabinet,  the,  admission  of  a judge 
to  seat  in,  93;  all  the  offices  in, 
held  by  the  Duke  of  W ellington, 
126 ; the  interior  cabinet  of  George 
III.,  24. 

Calcraft,  Mr.,  deprived  of  office  for 
opposition  to  court  policy,  36. 

Camden,  Lord,  disapproves  the  Mid- 
dlesex election  proceedings,  376, 
381;  defends  his  conduct  in  the 
cabinet,  378;  opinion  on  popular 
addresses  to  the  crown,  433. 

Campbell,  Lord,  his  opinion  on  life 
peerages,  239. 

Canning,  Mr.,  his  conduct  regarding 
the  Catholic  question,  87,  98,  118; 
in  office  under  Mr.  Perceval,  98; 
overtures  to,  from  the  court,  109 ; 
declines  to  support  George  IV. 
against  his  Queen,  113,  116,  n. ; 
character  of  his  oratory,  455. 

Carlton  House,  the  cost  of,  206. 

Carmarthen,  Marquess  of,  proscribed 
for  opposition  to  court  policy,  56. 

Caroline,  Queen  (of  George  IV.), 
proceedings  against,  113-116;  the 
Divorce  Bill,  114 ; withdrawn,  115. 

Catholic  Emancipation,  opposition 
to,  by  George  III.,  85,  95;  by 
George  IV.,  118;  measure  carried, 
119 ; a plea  for  parliamentary  re- 
form, 326. 

Cavendish,  Lord  J.,  his  motion  on 
the  American  war,  58. 

Cavendish,  Sir  H.,  reports  the  Com- 
mons’ debates  (1768-1774),  386,  n. 

Chancellor,  Lord.  See  Great  Seal, 
the. 

Charles  I.,  alienates  the  crown  lands, 
188. 

Charles  II.,  crown  revenues  recov- 
ered at  accession  of,  188;  subse- 
quent waste,  ib. ; appropriates 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


467 


army  grants,  191 ; bribery  at  elec- 
tions, and  of  members,  commenced 
under,  267,  270,  299. 

Charlotte,  Princess,  question  as  to 
guardianship  over,  222. 

Charlotte,  Queen  (of  George  III.), 
accepts  the  resolutions  for  a re- 
gency, 155, 177. 

Chatham,  Earl  of,  in  office  at  acces- 
sion of  George  III.,  24;  retires  and 
accepts  peerage,  29 ; refuses  to  re- 
sume office,  35,  38 ; his  demeanor 
as  a courtier,  45 ; forms  an  admin- 
istration, ib. ; endeavors  to  break 
up  parties,  46 ; ill  health,  47 ; re- 
tires, 48 ; statement  as  to  the 
King’s  influence,  49;  receives 
overtures  from  Lord  North,  51; 
approves  the  Grenville  Act,  292; 
advocates  parliamentary  reform, 
313;  favors  triennial  parliaments, 
349 ; his  opposition  to  the  proceed- 
ings against  Wilkes,  366,  376;  by 
bill,  380;  by  resolution,  381;  and 
by  addresses  to  dissolve  parlia- 
ment, 380,  381,  431;  condemns  the 
King’s  answer  to  the  city  address, 
380;  strangers  excluded  from  his 
speeches,  380,  387 ; supports  pop- 
ular addresses  to  the  crown,  433 ; 
his  opinion  on  the  exclusive  rights 
of  the  Commons  over  taxation, 
444;  position  as  an  orator,  451, 
460. 

Chippenham  election  petition,  Wal- 
pole displaced  from  office  by  vote 
upon,  291. 

Civil  list  of  the  crown,  191;  settle- 
ment of,  on  accession  of  George 
III.,  193;  charges  and  pensions 
thereon,  194,  210-214;  debts  in- 
curred upon,  192,  199 ; charges  re- 
moved from,  200,  201;  Civil  List 
Acts,  1782,  199;  1816,  201;  regu- 
lation of  the  civil  list,  201,  203; 
Commons  committee  on,  202 ; no 
debts  upon,  during  the  last  three 
reigns,  203.  See  also  Pensions 
from  the  Crown. 

Clerke,  Sir  P.  J.,  his  Contractors’ 
Bill,  322. 

Coalition  Ministry,  the  formation  of, 
63;  its  policy,  64;  overthrown, 
68. 

Cockburn,  Lord,  his  description  of 
Scotch  elections,  285. 

Coke,  Lady  Mary,  admired  by  the 
Duke  of  "York,  216. 


Coke,  Lord,  an  authority  for  life 
peerages,  238. 

Coke,  Mr.,  moves  a resolution  hos- 
tile to  the  Pitt  ministry,  74. 

Commission,  for  opening  parliament 
during  incapacity  of  George  III., 
questions  arising  thereupon,  156, 
159,  177;  form  of  such  commis- 
sion, 177 ; his  inability  to  sign 
commissions  for  prorogation,  172; 
the  commission  for  holding  assizes, 
157. 

Commissions  to  inquire  into  bribery 
at  elections,  345. 

Commons,  House  of,  unconstitution- 
al influence  of  the  crown  over  the, 
by  undue  influence  and  intimida- 
tion, 16,  32,  36,  42,  49,  72,  94;  by 
influence  at  elections,  277 ; by 
places,  pensions,  and  bribes,  293- 
309;  debates  thereon,  54-57,  67, 
68,  117 ; their  contest  with  Pitt’s 
first  ministry,  70-78;  resolutions 
against  a dissolution,  70-72,  432; 
against  the  issue  of  money  un- 
appropriated by  parliament,  72; 
against  the  recent  changes  in  the 
ministry,  73;  resolutions  to  be 
laid  before  Geo.  III.,  74;  resolu- 
tion against  interference  by  the 
Lords,  75;  comments  on  this  con- 
test, 78-80;  debates  on  the  pledge 
required  of  the  Grenville  minis- 
try, 96-98;  action  of  the  Com- 
mons as  regards  a regency,  144- 
185;  doubts  respecting  the  issue 
of  new  writs  during  George  III.’s 
incapacity,  148;  elect  a speaker 
during  King’s  incapacity,  154; 
vote  authorizing  use  of  great  seal, 
156,  157,  177 ; address  on  King’s 
recovery,  158 ; regulation  of  crown 
revenues  and  civil  list,  191-203; 
relations  between  the  two  houses, 
248 ; as  to  reform,  249 ; as  to  taxa- 
tion, 443 ; composition  of  the  house 
since  the  revolution,  263;  its  de- 
pendence and  corruption,^.;  de- 
fects in  the  representation,  264; 
ill-defined  rights  of  election,  266 ; 
nomination  boroughs,  265-267, 
284,  288;  influence  of  peers  in 
the  house,  267,  289;  bribery  at 
elections,  267;  since  reform,  341; 
at  the  general  elections  (1761), 
269;  (1768),  271;  sale  of  boroughs, 
270-277 ; gross  cases  of  bribery, 
272;  bribery  supported  by  Geo. 


468 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


III.,  274,  276;  government  influ- 
ence over  boroughs,  278 ; revenue 
officers  disfranchised,  ib. ; majority 
of  members  nominated,  287 ; trial 
of  election  petitions,  289 ; by  com- 
mittee of  privileges,  290;  at  the 
bar  of  the  house,  ib. ; the  Gren- 
ville Act,  292 ; corruption  of  mem- 
bers, 294-309 ; by  places  and  pen- 
sions, 294;  measures  to  disqualify 
placemen  and  pensioners,  295; 
number  of,  in  parliament,  297 ; 
judges  disqualified,  298;  bribes 
to  members,  299-304 ; under  Lord 
Bute,  301;  the  shop  at  the  pay- 
office,  ib.;  apology  for  refusing  a 
bribe,  303;  bribes  by  loans  and 
lotteries,  305-307 ; by  contracts, 
307 ; parliamentary  corruption  con- 
sidered, 309-312;  proceedings  in 
Commons  regarding  reform,  313- 
355;  efforts  to  repeal  Septennial 
Act,  348;  vote  by  ballot,  352; 
qualification  Acts,  353;  proceed- 
ings at  elections,  355 ; later  meas- 
ures of  reform,  ib.  ; relation  of  the 
Commons  to  Crown,  law,  and  peo- 
ple, 364-450;  contests  on  ques- 
tions of  privilege,  364;  proceed- 
ings against  Wilkes,  365;  deny 
him  his  privilege,  ib. ; expel  him, 
368;  repel  his  accusation  of  Lord 
Mansfield,  370;  expel  him  for 
libel  on  Lord  Weymouth,  371; 
his  reelections  declared  void,  374; 
Luttrell  seated  by  the  house,  375; 
motions  upon  Middlesex  election 
proceedings,  376,  382;  address  to 
the  King  condemning  the  city  ad- 
dress, 379;  the  resolution  against 
Wilkes  expunged,  383;  exclusion 
of  strangers  from  debates,  384, 
402;  the  exclusion  of  ladies,  403, 
n. ; the  lords  excluded  from  the 
Commons,  387;  contest  with  the 
printers,  389;  prohibit  the  publi- 
cation of  debates,  390;  increased 
severity  in  1771,  394;  proceed 
against  the  city  authorities  for 
resisting  the  speaker’s  warrant, 
397-400;  erase  the  messenger’s 
recognizance,  398;  report  of  de- 
bates permitted,  402;  reporters’ 
galleries,  406 ; strangers’  galleries, 
ib. ; publication  of  division  lists, 
ib. ; presence  of  strangers  at  di- 
visions, 407;  publicity  given  to 
committee  proceedings,  408;  to 


parliamentary  papers,  ib. ; early 
practice  regarding  petitions,  410; 
house  influenced  by  the  presen- 
tation of  petitions,  412;  debates 
on,  restrained,  417;  pledges  by 
members,  ib. ; discontinuance  of 
privileges,  420;  to  servants,  ib. ; 
of  prisoners  kneeling,  421 ; privi- 
lege and  the  courts  of  law,  421- 
426;  case  of  Sir  F.  Burdett,  422; 
Stockdale  and  Howard’s  actions, 
424;  commit  Stockdale  and  his 
agents,  425;  commit  the  sheriffs, 
ib. ; right  of  Commons  to  publish 
papers  affecting  character,  426 ; 
increased  power  of  the  Commons, 
428;  conduct  of,  regarding  Jew- 
ish disability,  ib . ; control  of  the 
Commons  over  the  government, 
429;  over  peace  and  war,  and 
over  dissolutions  of  parliament,  70, 
430,  431;  votes  of  want  of  confi- 
dence, 59,  73,  77,  434;  and  of 
confidence,  122,  336,  434;  im- 
peachments, 435 ; relations  be- 
tween the  Commons  and  minis- 
ters since  the  Reform  Act,  130, 
436;  their  control  over  national 
expenditure,  190,  439 ; liberality 
to  the  crown,  440;  stopping  the 
supplies,  442 ; supplies  delayed, 
72,  76,  443;  restraints  upon  the 
liberality  of  the  house,  443;  ex- 
clusive rights  over  taxation,  444; 
power  of  the  lords  to  reject  a 
money  bill,  445-450;  sketch  of 
parliamentary  oratory,  450;  con- 
duct of  the  house  in  debate,  459 ; 
increased  authority  of  the  chair, 
462.  See  also  Lords,  House  of; 
Parliament;  Petitions. 

Commonwealth,  destruction  of  crown 
revenues  at,  188. 

Contracts  with  Government  a means 
of  bribing  members,  307 ; contract- 
ors disqualified  from  parliament, 
308. 

Conway,  General,  proscribed  for 
votes  in  parliament,  36,  37 ; takes 
office  under  Lord  Rockingham, 
40 ; disclaims  the  influence  of  the 
“King’s  friends,”  41;  his  motion 
on  the  American  war,  58. 

Cornwall,  Duchy  of,  revenues  of 
inheritance  of  Prince  of  Wales, 
204;  present  amount,  ib. 

Cornwall,  Mr.  Speaker,  death  of, 
during  Geo.  III.’s  incapacity,  153. 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


469 


County  elections,  territorial  influ- 
ence over,  282;  expenses  of  con- 
test at,  283. 

Courts  of  law  and  parliamentary 
privilege,  421-428 ; decisions  in 
Burdett’s  case,  423 ; in  the  Stock- 
dale  cases,  424,  427. 

Crawford,  Mr.  S.,  his  motion  as  to 
duration  of  parliament,  350. 

Crewe,  Mr.,  his  Revenue  Officers’ 
Bill,  78. 

Cricklade,  bribery  at,  273;  disfran- 
chised, ib. 

Crosby,  Brass,  Lord  Mayor,  pro- 
ceeded against  for  committing  the 
messenger  of  the  house,  397-400. 

Crown,  the,  constitutional  position 
of,  since  the  revolution,  15 ; para- 
mount authority  of,  16;  sources 
of  its  influence,  16-19;  by  gov- 
ernment boroughs,  277 ; by  places, 
peerages,  and  pensions,  195,  294; 
by  bribes,  299 ; by  loans  and  lot- 
teries, 304 ; by  contracts,  307 ; re- 
strictions upon  its  personal  influ- 
ence over  parliament,  19,  20,  131, 
247,  437 ; measures  for  its  dimi- 
nution, by  disqualification  of  place- 
men, &c.,  61,  278. 295,  298,  308 ; by 
the  powers  of  the  commons  over 
the  civil  list  expenditure,  189, 
211 ; and  over  supplies,  439 ; con- 
stitutional relations  between  crown 
and  ministers,  25,  95,  125,  131, 
135,  436;  influence  of  the  crown 
over  the  government  during  Lord 
Bute’s  ministry,  31;  Mr.  Gren- 
ville’s, 36;  Lord  Rockingham’s, 
40,  61;  Lord  North’s,  49;  Lord 
Shelburne’s,  62;  “the  coalition,” 
64;  Mr.  Pitt’s,  81,  84;  Adding- 
ton’s, 89;  Lord  Grenville’s,  92; 
Mr.  Perceval’s,  103,  108;  influ- 
ence of  the  crown  during  reigns 
of  William  IV.  and  her  Majesty, 
119-140 ; debates  upon  the  uncon- 
stitutional influence  of  the  crown 
over  parliament,  44,  53-57,  67,  73, 
117 ; violation  of  parliamentary 
privileges  by  the  crown,  33,  36, 
43,  49,  56,  72;  bribery  at  elec- 
tions, and  of  members  supported 
by  the  crown,  274,  276,  303;  influ- 
ence of  the  crown  exerted  against 
its  ministers,  43,  65,  83,  94,  118; 
the  attitude  of  parties  a proof  of 
the  paramount  influence  of  the 
crown,  84,  108;  its  influence  ex- 


erted in  favor  of  reform,  119, 123 ; 
wise  exertion  of  influence  of  crown 
in  the  present  reign,  138;  its  gen- 
eral influence  increased,  139;  par- 
liament kept  in  harmony  by  in- 
fluence of  the  crown,  248;  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  crown  in  abeyance, 
141-185 ; the  Regency  Bills  of 
George  III.,  142-177 ; "of  William 
IV.,  182 ; of  Queen  Victoria,  185 ; 
powers  of  the  crown  exercised  by 
parliament,  152,  155,  177,  178; 
the  Royal  Sign-Manual  Bill,  179 ; 
questions  as  to  accession  of  an  in- 
fant king,  181;  as  to  the  rights  of 
a posthumous  child,  184;  ancient 
revenues  of  the  crown,  186;  con- 
stitutional results  of  its  improvi- 
dence, 189;  parliamentary  settle- 
ment of  crown  revenues,  190 ; the 
civil  list,  191-203;  private  prop- 
erty of  the  crown,  205 ; provision 
for  royal  family,  ib.';  land  revenues, 
207 ; the  pension  list,  210 ; rights 
of  crown  over  the  Royal  Family, 
214;  over  grandchildren,  216,222; 
over  royal  marriages,  216 ; Royal 
Marriage  Act,  ib. ; question  sub- 
mitted to  the  judges,  218 ; opinion 
of  law  officers  on  marriage  of 
Duke  of  Sussex,  221;  attempt  to 
limit  the  rights  of  crown  in  crea- 
tion of  peers,  225;  numerous  ap- 
plications for  peerages,  230;  the 
crown  receives  the  advice  of  par- 
liament as  to  peace  and  war,  con- 
cerning a dissolution,  and  the  con- 
duct of  ministers,  430-434;  ap- 
peals to  the  people,  if  dissatisfied 
with  the  judgment  of  parliament, 
431 ; addressed  by  the  people*  on 
the  subject  of  a dissolution,  432; 
improved  relations  between  the 
crown  and  commons,  437,  440; 
the  refusal  of  supplies,  72,  76,  442; 
its  recommendation  required  to  mo- 
tions for  grant  of  public  money,  443. 

Crown  lands.  /See  Revenues  of  the 
Crown. 

Cumberland,  Duke  of,  conducts  min- 
isterial negotiations  for  the  King, 
39,  40;  protests  against  resolutions 
for  a regency  bill,  155;  his  name 
omitted  from  the  commission  to 
open  parliament,  157 ; marries 
Mrs.  Horton,  215. 

Curwen,  Mr.,  his  Act  to  restrain  the 
sale  of  boroughs,  276. 


470 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


Oust,  Sir  John,  chosen  speaker,  28 ; 
altercations  with,  462. 

Customs  and  excise  officers  dis- 
franchised, 278;  numbers  of,  279. 

Danby,  Earl,  his  case  cited  with  ref- 
erence to  ministerial  responsibili- 
ty, 101. 

Debates  in  parliament,  publication 
of,  prohibited,  389,  390 ; sanctioned 
by  the  Long  Parliament,  390 ; ear- 
ly publications  of  debates,  391; 
abuses  of  reporting,  392,  393 ; con- 
test with  the  printers,  394 ; report- 
ing permitted,  402;  late  instance 
of  complaints  against  persons  tak- 
ing notes,  403;  reporting  inter- 
rupted by  the  exclusion  of  stran- 
gers, ib. ; progress  of  the  system, 
404;  a breach  of  privilege,  405; 
galleries  for  reporters,  406;  free- 
dom of  comment  on  debates,  409 ; 
improved  taste  in  debate,  459, 
461 ; personalities  of  former  times, 
460. 

Denman,  Lord,  his  decision  in  Stock- 
dale  v.  Hansard,  424. 

Dering,  Sir  E.,  expelled  for  publish- 
ing his  speeches,  390. 

Derby,  Earl  of,  the  reform  bill  of  his 
ministry,  358;  bill  lost,  360;  min- 
istry defeated  on  the  house  tax,  442. 

D’Este,  Sir  A.,  his  claim  to  dukedom 
of  Sussex,  221. 

Devonshire,  Duke  of,  disgraced  for 
opposition  to  the  treaty  with 
France,  32;  resigns  his  lord-lieu- 
tenancy,  ib. 

Disraeli,  Mr.,  brings  in  a reform  bill, 
358. 

Dissolutions  of  parliament.  See  Ad- 
dresses to  the  Crown ; Parliament. 

Divisions,  lists  of,  published,  in  the 
Commons,  406 ; in  the  Lords,  408 ; 
presence  of  strangers  at,  ib. 

Dowdeswell,  Mr.,  opposes  the  expul- 
sion of  Wilkes,  372,  377. 

“Droit  le  Roi,”  burnt  by  order  of 
the  Lords,  369. 

Droits  of  the  Crown  and  Admiralty, 
the,  vested  in  the  crown  till  acces- 
sion of  William  IV.,  193,  201. 

Dundas,  Mr.,  his  amendment  to  Mr. 
Dunning’s  resolutions,  55. 

Dunning,  Mr.,  his  resolutions  against 
influence  of  the  crown,  55;  denies 
the  right  to  incapacitate  Wilkes, 
377. 


Dyson,  Mr.,  his  sobriquet,  394. 

East  Retford,  disfranchisement 
bill  of,  328. 

Ebrington,  Lord,  his  motions  in  sup- 
port of  reform  ministry,  336,  338. 

Economic  reform,  Mr.  Burke’s,  54, 
197,  212. 

Edinburgh,  defective  representation 
of,  284;  bill  to  amend  it,  286. 

Edward  II.,  revenues  of  his  crown, 
187. 

Edward  VI.,  his  sign-manual  affixed 
by  a stamp,  181. 

Effingham,  Earl  of,  his  motion  con- 
demning the  Commons’s  opposi- 
tion to  Mr.  Pitt,  74. 

Eldon,  Lord,  Geo.  III.’s  suspected 
adviser  against  the  Grenville  min- 
istry, 98 ; disliked  by  the  Regent, 
107 ; condoles  with  George  IV. 
on  the  Catholic  emancipation,  119 ; 
scandalized  when  the  crown  sup- 
ports reform,  121;  chancellor  to 
the  Addington  ministry,  165;  his 
declaration  as  to  Geo.  III.’s  com- 
petency to  transact  business,  168 ; 
obtains  the  royal  assent  to  bills, 
ib. ; his  interview  with  the  King, 
ib. ; negotiates  Pitt’s  return  to 
office,  169 ; his  conduct  impugned, 
170;  motions  to  omit  his  name 
from  Council  of  Regency,  ib.,  171; 
his  opinion  as  to  accession  of  in- 
fant king,  182;  his  position  as 
statesman,  456. 

Election  petitions,  trial  of,  prior  to 
the  Grenville  Act,  288 ; under  that 
Act,  291,  292 ; later  election  peti- 
tion Acts,  294. 

Elections,  expensive  contests  at,  267, 
272,  283;  vexatious  contests,  280; 
Acts  to  amend  election  proceed- 
ings, 355;  writs  for,  addressed  to 
returning  officers,  356.  See  also 
Reform  of  Parliament. 

Ellenborough,  Lord,  his  admission  to 
the  cabinet,  when  Lord  Chief  Jus- 
tice, 93. 

Erskine,  Lord,  his  motions  against  a 
dissolution,  68,  71 ; his  speech  on 
the  pledge  required  from  the  Gren- 
ville ministry,  99;  his  support  of 
reform,  319, 321,  323 ; character  of 
his  oratory,  454. 

Establishment  Bill,  brought  in  by 
Burke,  198. 

Exchequer  chamber,  court  of,  re- 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


471 


verse  decision  in  Howard  v.  Gos- 
set,  428. 

Families,  great,  state  influence  of, 
20,  283;  opposed  by  George  III., 
23,  46 ; influence  of,  at  the  present 
day,  139. 

Fitzherbert,  Mr.,  proscribed  for  oppo- 
sition to  court  policy,  37. 

Fitzherbert,  Mrs.,  married  the  Prince 
of  Wales,  220. 

Flood,  Mr.,  his  reform  bill,  318. 

Four  and  a half  per  cent,  duties,  the 
casual  sources  of  revenue  of  the 
crown,  193,  202;  charged  with 
pensions,  210,  213;  surrendered 
by  William  IV.,  214. 

Fox,  Mr.  C.  J.,  his  remarks  on 
George  III.’s  system  of  govern- 
ment, 52,  53,  57,  61;  coalesces 
with  Lord  North,  63 ; the  coalition 
ministry,  64;  brings  in  the  India 
Bill,  66;  dismissed,  68;  opposition 
to  Pitt,  70-78;  proscribed  from  of- 
fice by  the  King,  90 ; admitted  to 
office,  93 ; dismissed,  96 ; his  death 
alienates  the  Regent  from  the 
Whigs,  106;  his  conduct  regard- 
ing the  Regency  Bill,  149,  152; 
comments  thereon,  161 ; disap- 
proved of  the  Royal  Marriage 
Act,  218;  the  Westminster  elec- 
tion, 280;  cost  of  the  scrutiny, 
281;  unfair  treatment  from  Mr. 
Pitt,  282 ; denounces  parliamen- 
tary corruption  by  loans,  306; 
supports  the  proceedings  against 
Wilkes,  383;  remarks  on  unre- 
strained reporting,  403;  carriage 
broken  by  mob,  400;  position  as 
orator,  452. 

Fox,  Mr.  Henry,  Sir  R.  Walpole’s 
agent  in  bribery,  301. 

France,  treaty  of  peace  with,  pro- 
scription of  the  Whigs  for  disap- 
proval of,  32 ; members  bribed  to 
support,  302. 

Franchise,  the,  of  England,  266,  282 ; 
of  Scotland,  284;  of  Ireland,  288; 
under  the  Reform  Act,  338-340; 
proposed  alterations  in,  355 ; fancy 
franchises,  357,  359.  See  Reform 
in  Parliament. 

“Friends  of  the  People,”  society, 
statements  by,  as  to  composition 
of  House  of  Commons,  266,  289. 

Fuller,  Mr.  R.,  bribed  by  pension 
from  the  crown,  295. 


Gascoyne,  General,  his  anti-reform 
motion,  335. 

Gatton,  number  of  voters  in,  prior  to 
reform,  266 ; price  of,  292. 

Gazetteer,  the,  complained  against 
for  publishing  debates,  394. 

Gentleman’s  Magazine,  the,  one  of 
the  first  to  report  parliamentary 
debates,  391. 

George  I.,  his  civil  list,  192;  powers 
he  claimed  over  his  grandchildren, 
216 ; consents  to  Peerage  Bill, 
225. 

George  II.,  his  Regency  Act,  142; 
his  civil  list,  192;  the  great  seal 
affixed  to  two  commissions  during 
his  illness,  156 ; his  savings,  194. 

George  III.,  accession  of,  21;  educa- 
tion, 22 ; determination  to  govern, 
21-28;  secret  counsellors,  24;  his 
jealousy  of  the  Whig  families,  23- 
29 ; his  arbitrary  conduct  and  vio- 
lation of  parliamentary  privileges 
during  Lord  Bute’s  ministry,  32, 
33;  during  Mr.  Grenville’s  min- 
istry, 36 ; his  differences  with  that 
ministry,  35,  38,  40 ; his  active  in- 
terference in  the  government,  38 ; 
pledge  not  to  be  influenced  by 
Lord  Bute,  39;  consents  to  dis- 
miss Mr.  S.  Mackenzie,  40;  the 
conditions  of  the  Rockingham 
ministry,  40 ; exerts  his  influence 
against  them,  43,  44;  attempts, 
with  Chatham,  to  destroy  parties, 
45;  his  influence  during  Chat- 
ham’s ministry,  47,  48 ; tries  to  re- 
tain him  in  office,  48 ; his  ascend- 
ency in  Lord  North’s  time,  49,  52, 
60;  irritation  at  opposition,  49, 
52;  exerts  his  will  in  favor  of -the 
Royal  Marriage  Bill,  49;  takes 
notice  of  proceedings  in  parlia- 
ment, ib. ; proscribes  officers  in  op- 
position, 51;  his  overtures  to  the 
Whigs,  52,  53 ; his  personal  inter- 
ference in  parliament  protested 
against,  53-57,  67 ; seeks  to  intim- 
idate opposition  peers,  56;  defeat 
of  his  American  policy,  58,  59; 
approval  of  Lord  North’s  conduct, 
ib. ; results  of  the  King’s  policy, 
60 ; the  Rockingham  ministry,  61 ; 
measures  to  repress  his  influence, 
61-65,  278,  295,  298;  he  reasserts 
it  with  Lord  Shelburne,  62 ; resists 
the  “coalition,”  63-68;  negotiates 
with  Pitt,  63,  64;  use  of  his  name 


472 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


against  the  India  Bill,  66;  sup- 
ports Pitt  against  the  commons, 
75-77 ; his  position  during  this  con- 
test, 77-79;  its  effect  upon  his 
policy,  80 ; his  relations  with  Pitt, 
81;  "his  general  influence  aug- 
mented, 82;  prepared  to  use  it 
against  Pitt,  83;  dismisses  him, 
85 ; opposition  to  the  Catholic 
question,  85-88;  illness  from  agi- 
tation on  this  subject,  89;  his  re- 
lations with  Addington,  ib.,  163; 
refuses  to  admit  Fox  to  office,  90 ; 
Pitt  reinstated,  91;  admits  Lord 
Grenville  to  office,  93;  opposes 
changes  in  army  administration, 
94,  and  the  Army  and  Navy  Ser- 
vice Bill,  ib. ; unconstitutional  use 
of  his  influence,  ib. ; pledge  he  re- 
quired of  his  ministers,  96;  his 
anti-Catholic  appeal  on  the  disso- 
lution (1807),  102;  his  influence 
prior  to  his  last  illness,  103;  his 
character  compared  to  that  of  the 
Prince  Regent,  ib. ; the  King’s 
illnesses,  141-178 ; the  first  illness, 
141;  his  scheme  for  a regency, 
142;  modified  by  ministers,  143; 
speech,  and  addresses  on  this  sub- 
ject, 144;  consents  to  the  with- 
drawal of  his  mother’s  name  from 
Regency  Bill,  146 ; second  illness, 
147 ; recovery,  159 ; anxious  to 
provide  for  a regency,  163;  third 
illness,  in  the  interval  between  the 
Pitt  and  Addington  ministries, 
163,  164;  recovery,  165;  fourth 
illness,  166 ; questions  arising  as  to 
his  competency  to  transact  busi- 
ness, 167-171;  gives  assent  to 
bills,  168 ; anecdote  of  his  reading 
the  bills,  ib. ; Pitt’s  return  to  of- 
fice, 169;  their  interview,  170;  his 
last  illness,  172;  the  passing  the 
Regency  Bill,  173-177 ; his  inabil- 
ity to  sign  commissions  for  proro- 
gation, 172 ; difficulties  as  to  issue 
of  public  money,  178;  his  civil 
list,  192;  other  sources  of  reve- 
nue, 194;  purchases  Buckingham 
House,  195 ; domestic  economy, 
ib. ; debts  on  civil  list,  195-199; 
Sir  F.  Norton’s  address,  197 ; pro- 
fusion in  the  household,  198;  his 
message  on  public  expenditure, 
ib. ; his  pension  list,  211;  his  an- 
noyance at  his  brothers’  marria- 
ges, 215 ; his  attachment  to  Lady 


S . Lennox,  216 ; the  Royal  Mar- 
riage Act,  ib .,  217;  claims  guar- 
dianship of  Princess  Charlotte, 
222;  profuse  in  creation  of  peers, 
226-228 ; supports  bribery  at  elec- 
tions, and  of  members,  274,  276, 
303 ; his  opposition  to  reform,  83, 
316;  his  answer  to  the  city  ad- 
dress on  the  proceedings  against 
Wilkes,  379;  objects  to  political 
agitation  by  petitions,  414. 

George  IV.,  ascendency  of  the  Tory 
party  under,  112 ; the  proceedings 
against  his  Queen,  113;  his  aver- 
sion to  Lord  Grey  and  the  Whigs, 
116 ; his  popularity,  117 ; his  op- 
position to  Catholic  claims,  118; 
yields,  and  exerts  his  influence 
against  his  ministers,  119;  au- 
thorized to  affix  his  sign-manual 
by  a stamp,  178;  his  civil  list  and 
other  revenues,  200. 

Germaine,  Lord  G.,  his  statement 
respecting  Geo.  III.’s  personal  in- 
fluence, 52. 

Glasgow,  defective  representation  of, 
283. 

Gloucester,  bribery  at,  346. 

Gloucester,  Duke  of,  marries  Lady 
Waldegrave,  215. 

Gordon,  Lord  G.,  presents  petitions 
to  parliament,  413. 

Gosset,  Sir  W.,  sued  by  Howard  for 
trespass,  427. 

Government,  executive,  control  of 
parliament  over,  429;  strong  and 
weak  governments  since  the  Re- 
form Act,  437.  See  also  Ministers 
of  the  Crown. 

Gower,  Earl  of,  his  amendment  to 
resolutions  for  a regency,  176. 

Grafton,  Duke  of,  dismissed  from 
lord-lieutenancy  for  opposing  the 
court  policy,  32;  accepts  office 
under  Lord  Chatham,  45;  com- 
plains of  the  bad  results  of  Chat- 
ham’s ill-health,  47 ; consequent 
weakness  of  the  ministry,  48 ; re- 
signs, ib. ; his  ministry  broken  up 
by  debates  upon  Wilkes,  377. 

Grampound  disfranchisement  bills, 
323,  324. 

Grattan,  Mr.,  character  of  his  ora- 
tory, 455. 

Great  seal,  the,  use  of,  under  au- 
thority of  parliament,  during  Geo. 
III.’s  illness,  156-158,  176;  ques- 
tions arising  thereupon,  159;  af- 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  L 


473 


fixed  by  Lord  Hardwicke  to  two 
commissions  during  illness  of 
George  II.,  156. 

Grenville  Act,  trial  of  election  pe- 
titions under,  291;  made  perpet- 
ual, 292. 

Grenville,  Lord,  in  office  with  Pitt, 
90;  forms  an  administration  on 
his  death,  92 ; differs  from  the 
King  on  army  administration, 
93;  the  Army  Service  Bill,  94; 
cabinet  minute  reserving  liberty 
of  action  on  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion, 95;  pledge  required  by  the 
King  on  that  subject,  96;  dis- 
missed, ib. ; his  advice  neglected 
by  the  Regent,  107;  attempted 
reconciliation,  108;  failure  of  ne- 
gotiations on  the  “Household 
Question,”  110;  his  difficulty  in  is- 
suing public  money  during  George 
III.’s  incapacity,  178. 

Grenville,  Mr.  George,  succeeds  Lord 
Bute  as  premier,  34;  does  not  de- 
fer to  George  III.,  35;  remon- 
strates against  Lord  Bute’s  influ- 
ence, ib .,  38;  supports  the  King’s 
arbitrary  measures,  35 ; differ- 
ences between  them,  37 ; his  elec- 
tion petition  act,  291;  statement 
of  amount  of  secret  Service  mon- 
ey, 301;  the  bribery  under  his 
ministry,  302;  opposes  Wilkes’s 
expulsion,  372;  motion  for  reduc- 
tion of  land  tax,  442. 

Grey,  Earl,  his  advice  neglected  by 
the  Regent,  107;  out  of  court  fa- 
vor, 112;  declines  office  on  the 
“Household  Question,”  110;  ad- 
vocates reform,  and  leads  the  re- 
form ministry,  121-124,  249,  319, 
320,  332;  loses  the  confidence  of 
William  IV.,  124;  accuses  Lord 
Eldon  of  using  George  III.’s  name 
without  due  authority,  168,  171; 
regulation  of  the  civil  list  by  his 
ministry,  201;  advises  the  crea- 
tion of  new  peers,  250,  253,  337 ; 
favored  a shorter  duration  of  par- 
liament, 349;  character  of  his 
oratory,  455. 

Grey,  Mr.,  (1667,)  reports  the  de- 
bates, 390. 

Grosvenor,  General,  his  hostile  mo- 
tion against  Mr.  Pitt’s  ministry, 
74. 

Grote,  Mr.,  advocates  vote  by  ballot, 


Halifax,  Lord,  obtains  consent  of 
Geo.  III.  to  exclude  his  mother 
from  the  Regency,  145. 

Hamilton,  Duke  of,  a Scottish  Peer, 
not  allowed  the  rights  of  an  Eng- 
lish peer,  232. 

Hamilton,  Lord  A.,  advocates  re- 
form in  Scotch  representation,  286. 

Hanover,  house  of,  character  of  the 
first  two  kings  of,  favorable  to 
constitutional  government,  20. 

Hanover,  kingdom  of,  revenues  at- 
tached to  the  crown  till  her  Ma- 
jesty’s accession,  194,  203. 

Hansard,  Messrs.,  sued  by  Stock- 
dale  for  libel,  423. 

Harcourt,  Lord,  supports  the  influ- 
ence of  the  crown  over  parlia- 
ment, 44. 

Hardwicke,  Lord,  affixed  great  seal 
to  commissions  during  illness  of 
George  II.,  156. 

Harrowby,  Earl  of,  supports  George 
IV.  on  the  Catholic  question,  100. 

Hastings,  Mr.  Warren,  impeach- 
ments not  abated  by  dissolution 
established  in  his  case,  436. 

Hastings,  sale  of  borough  seat,  277. 

Hawkesbury,  Lord,  supposed  ad- 
viser of  Geo.  III.  against  the 
Grenville  ministry,  98;  his  dec- 
laration as  to  King’s  competency 
to  transact  business,  168. 

Heberden,  Dr.,  his  evidence  regard- 
ing the  King’s  illnesses,  170. 

Henley,  Mr.,  secedes  from  the  Der- 
by ministry  on  question  of  re- 
form, 360. 

Henry  III.,  V.,  VI.,  and  VII.,  reve- 
nues of  their  crowns,  187,  188. 

Henry  VIII.,  his  sign-manual*  af- 
fixed by  a stamp,  180 ; his  crown 
revenues,  188. 

Herbert,  Mr.,  his  bill  as  to  the  ex- 
pulsion of  members,  378. 

Heron,  Sir  R.,  bill  for  shortening 
duration  of  parliament,  349. 

Hindon,  bribery  at,  273. 

Hobhouse,  Mr.,  committed  for  con- 
tempt, 409. 

Holdernesse,  Lord,  retires  from  of* 
fice  in  favor  of  Lord  Bute,  29. 

Holland,  Lord,  amendment  for  an 
address  to  Prince  of  Wales,  175. 

Horner,  Mr.  F.,  his  speech  against 
a regency  bill,  174. 

Household,  the.  See  Royal  House- 
hold. 


474 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


House  tax,  Lord  Derby’s  ministry 
defeated  on,  442. 

Howard,  Messrs.,  reprimanded  for 
conducting  Stockdale’s  action, 
425 ; committed,  426 ; sue  the  ser- 
geant-at-arms, 427. 

Howick,  Lord,  denounces  secret  ad- 
vice to  crown,  98,  99.  See  Grey, 
Earl. 

Huskisson,  Mr.,  his  prophecy  of  re- 
form in  parliament,  329. 

Impeachment  of  ministers  by  par- 
liament, 435;  rare  in  later  times, 
ib.;  not  abated  by  a dissolution, 
436. 

India  Bill,  the,  1783,  thrown  out  by 
influence  of  the  crown,  68. 

Ireland,  position  of  Church,  causes 
alarm  to  William  IV.,  124:  num- 
ber of  archbishops  and  bishops  of, 
229,  representative  bishops  of,  ib. 
civil  list  of,  194,  201 ; pen- 
sions on  crown  revenues  of,  210, 
212;  consolidated  with  English 

pension  list,  214. parliament 

of,  their  proceedings  on  the  re- 
gency, 162;  address  the  Prince, 
ib. ; office-holders  disqualified  in, 
297.  — — the  representative  peers 
of,  228;  restriction  upon  number 
of  the  Irish  peerage,  ib. ; absorp- 
tion of,  into  peerage  of  United 
Kingdom,  235 ; Irish  peers  sit  in 
the  commons,  229. represen- 

tation of,  prior  to  Reform  Bill, 
286,  288;  nomination  boroughs 
abolished  at  the  Union,  287 ; Irish 
judges  disqualified,  298. Re- 

form Act  of,  340;  amended  (1850), 
ib. 

Irnham,  Lord,  his  daughter  mar- 
ried to  Duke  of  Cumberland, 
215. 

James  I.,  amount  of  his  crown  rev- 
enues, 188. 

Jews,  admission  of,  to  parliament, 
428. 

Johnson,  Dr.,  the  compiler  of  par- 
liamentary reports,  391,  392,  403, 
451,  n. 

Jones,  Mr.  Gale,  committed  for  libel 
on  the  House,  409. 

Judges,  introduction  of  a judge  into 
the  cabinet,  93;  disqualified  from 
parliament,  298 ; except  the  Mas- 
ter of  the  Rolls,  299. 


Kent,  Duchess  of,  appointed  Re- 
gent (1830),  185. 

Kentish  petitioners  imprisoned  by 
the  commons,  411. 

Kenyon,  Lord,  opinion  on  the  cor- 
onation oath,  85. 

King,  Lord,  moves  to  omit  Lord 
Eldon’s  name  from  the  council  of 
regency,  171. 

King,  questions  as  to  accession  of 
an  infant  king,  182;  as  to  the 
rights  of  a king’s  posthumous 
child,  184;  rights  of  a king  over 
the  royal  family,  214.  See  also 
Crown,  the ; George  III. ; Regen- 
cy; &c. 

“ King’s  Friends,  the,”  the  party  so 
called,  24 ; their  influence,  41 ; led 
by  Addington,  90,  92?  94;  their 
activity  on  the  Catholic  question, 
87 ; against  the  Army  Service 
Bill,  94;  the  “nabobs”  rank 
themselves  among,  270. 

Knighthood,  the  orders  of,  260. 

Ladies  attending  debates  in  the 
commons,  386;  their  exclusion, 
404,  n. 

Lamb  ton,  Mr.,  his  motion  for  re- 
form, 288,  324. 

Lancaster,  Duchy  of,  revenues  of, 
attached  to  crown,  188,  194,  204; 
present  amount,  204. 

Land  revenues  of  the  crown.  See 
Revenues  of  the  Crown. 

Land  tax,  the,  allowed  twice  over  to 
crown  tenantry,  208;  reduced  by 
vote  of  the  commons,  442;  third 
reading  of  a land  tax  bill  delayed, 
70,  443. 

Lansdowne,  Marquess  of,  his  amend- 
ment to  resolutions  for  a regency, 
176. 

Lauderdale,  Earl  of,  condemns  the 
king’s  conduct  to  the  Grenville 
ministry,  100,  101;  his  rights  as 
peer  both  of  Great  Britain  and 
Scotland,  234. 

Leicester,  case  of  bribery  from  cor- 
porate funds,  327. 

Lennox,  Lady  S.,  admired  by  George 
III.,  216. 

Life  peerages,  237;  to  women,  ib.; 
the  Wenslevdale  peerage  case, 
239. 

Liverpool,  Earl  of,  his  ministry,  112 ; 
conduct  the  proceedings  against 
Queen  Caroline,  114, 116. 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


475 


Loans  to  government,  members 
bribed  by  shares  in,  304;  cessa- 
tion of  the  system,  307. 

London,  city  of,  address  George 

III.  condemning  the  proceedings 
against  Wilkes,  378. 

London  Magazine,  the,  one  of  the 
first  to  report  parliamentary  de- 
bates, 391. 

Lords,  House  of,  relations  of,  with 
the  crown,  16,  17 ; influence  of  the 
crown  exerted  over  the  lords,  56, 
66,  123,  252;  debates  on  the  in- 
fluence of  the  crown,  54-57 ; re- 
ject the  India  Bill,  67 ; condemn 
the  commons’  opposition  to  Mr. 
Pitt,  74;  proceedings  on  the  re- 
form bills,  122-124,  249,  336;  pro- 
posed creation  of  peers,  123,  250, 
336;  proceedings  on  the  regency 
bills  of  George  III.,  143-178;  po- 
sition of  the  house  of  lords  in  the 
state,  223,  245;  increase  of  its 
numbers,  224-228;  enlargement  a 
source  of  strength,  244;  number 
of  peers,  from  Henry  VII.  to 
George  III.,  224,  226 ; twelve  peers 
created  in  one  day  by  Queen 
Anne,  224;  representative  peers 
of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  ib.,  229; 
sixteen  peers  created  by  William 

IV. ,  250;  proposed  restrictions 
upon  the  power  of  the  crown, 
and  the  regent,  in  creation  of 
peers,  225,  227 ; profuse  creations 
by  George  III.,  226;  composition 
of  the  house  in  1860,  229,  n. ; 
its  representative  character,  231; 
rights  of  peers  of  Scotland,  232- 
234;  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the 
lords,  236 ; bill  to  improve  it,  242 ; 
life  peerage  question,  237;  Lords 
spiritual,  242;  past  and  present 
number,  243 ; attempt  to  exclude 
them,  244;  political  position  of 
the  house,  245,  263;  influence  of 
parties,  247 ; collisions  between  the 
two  houses,  248;  the  danger  in- 
creased, 249 ; creation  of  new  peers 
equivalent  to  a dissolution,  254; 
position  of  the  house  since  reform, 
255 ; their  independence,  ib. ; pro- 
ceedings indicating  their  power, 
256 ; scanty  attendance  in  the 
house,  258,  259;  smallness  of  the 
quorum,  258 ; deference  to  leaders, 
259;  influence  of  peers  over  the 
commons  through  nomination 


boroughs,  266;  and  through  ter- 
ritorial influence,  283,  288 ; refusal 
of  the  lords  to  indemnify  the  wit- 
nesses against  Walpole,  301;  pro- 
ceedings against  Wilkes,  368,  370; 
“Droit  le  Roi  ” burnt,  367;  ad- 
dress to  condemn  the  city  address 
on  the  Middlesex  election  proceed- 
ings, 379;  debates  on  those  pro- 
ceedings, 375,  380;  strangers  and 
members  excluded  from  debates, 
386,  403;  scene  on  one  occasion, 
386 ; reports  of  debates  permitted, 
402,  405 ; presence  of  strangers  at 
divisions,  407 ; publicity  given  to 
committee  proceedings,  408 ; to 
parliamentary  papers,  ib. ; privi- 
lege to  servants  discontinued,  420 ; 
prisoners  kneeling  at  the  bar,  421; 
control  of  the  lords  over  the  ex- 
ecutive government,  429;  advise 
the  crown  on  questions  of  peace 
and  war,  and  of  a dissolution,  430; 
rejection  of  a money  bill,  445; 
sketch  of  parliamentary  oratorv, 
450. 

Lords  spiritual.  See  Bishops. 

Lottery  tickets  (government),  mem- 
bers bribed  by,  305. 

Ludgershall,  price  of  seat,  272. 

Lushington,  Dr.,  a life  peerage  of- 
fered to,  239;  disqualified  from 
parliament,  298. 

Luttrell,  Colonel,  his  sister  married 
to  the  Duke  of  Cumberland,  215 ; 
opposes  Wilkes  for  Middlesex, 
374;  enforces  the  exclusion  of 
strangers,  403. 

Lyndhurst,  Lord,  his  motion  on  the 
life  peerage  case,  239. 

Lyttelton,  Lord,  his  address  respect- 
ing the  regency,  145;  his  com- 
plaint against  “Droit  le  Roi,” 
369. 

Lyttleton,  Mr.,  his  motion  on  the 
dismissal  of  the  Grenville  minis- 
try, 102. 

Macclesfield,  Lord,  decided  in 
favor  of  rights  of  crown  over 
grandchildren,  217. 

Mackenzie,  Mr.  S.,  dismissed  from 
office,  40,  41. 

Manchester,  Duke  of,  strangers  ex- 
cluded on  his  motion  relative  to 
war  with  Spain,  387. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  exhorts  George  III. 
to  exert  his  influence  over  parlia- 


476 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


ment,  44;  precedent  of  his  admis- 
sion to  the  cabinet  cited,  93;  his 
opinion  on  the  right  of  the  com- 
mons to  incapacitate  Wilkes,  376, 
381;  accused  by  Wilkes  of  alter- 
ing a record,  370. 

Marchmont,  Lord,  his  motion  on  the 
Middlesex  election  proceedings, 
377. 

Martin,  Mr.,  his  duel  with  Wilkes, 
368. 

Marvell,  A.,  reported  proceedings  in 
the  commons,  391. 

Mary  (Queen  of  England),  her  sign- 
manual  affixed  by  a stamp,  101. 

Melbourne,  Viscount,  in  office,  125; 
his  sudden  dismissal,  ib. ; rein- 
stated, 130;  in  office  at  accession 
of  her  Majesty,  131;  organizes  her 
household,  ib. ; kept  in  office  by 
the  “ Bedchamber  Question,”  132; 
resigns  office,  134. 

Melville,  Lord,  his  impeachment, 
436. 

Members  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
number  of  nominee  members,  287 ; 
bribed  by  pensions,  295;  bribery 
under  Charles  II.,  299;  under 
William  III.,  300;  George  II.,  301; 
George  III.,  301-304;  bribed  by 
loans  and  lotteries,  304-307 ; by 
contracts,  307 ; wages  to,  provided 
for  in  Lord  Blandford’s  reform 
bill,  326;  abolition  of  qualifica- 
tions, 354;  excluded  from  debates 
in  the  Lords,  388 ; system  of 
pledges  to  constituents  considered, 
418 ; certain  privileges  of,  discon- 
tinued, 420.  See  Commons,  House 
of. 

Middlesex  Journal,  the,  complaint 
against,  for  misrepresenting  de- 
bates, 394. 

Middlesex,  sheriffs  of,  committed  by 
the  House  in  the  Stockdale  ac- 
tions, 425. 

Military  officers,  deprived  of  com- 
mand for  opposition  to  the  policy 
of  Geo.  III.,  36,  51 ; practice  con- 
demned under  the  Rockingham 
ministry,  40. 

Miller,  proceeded  against  for  pub- 
lishing debates,  396 ; the  city  au- 
thorities interpose,  397. 

Ministers,  of  the  crown,  responsi- 
bility of,  19,  95;  regarded  with 
jealousy  by  George  III.,  21;  con- 
stitutional relations  between  crown 


and  ministers,  25-28,  95, 125,  131, 
135,  436;  influence  of  the  crown 
exerted  against  its  ministers,  43, 
65,  83,  94,  119;  the  pledge  ex- 
acted by  George  III.  of  his  min- 
isters, 95 ; supported  by  the  crown 
and  the  commons  in  reform,  120, 
250,  335 ; influence  of  great  fami- 
lies over  ministries,  139 ; numerous 
applications  to,  for  peerages,  241; 
votes  of  want  of  confidence,  59, 
74,  77,  434;  and  of  confidence,  122, 
336,  434;  ministers  impeached  by 
the  commons,  435;  the  stability 
of  recent  ministries  considered, 
437;  their  financial  arrangements 
dissented  from,  441. 

Minorities,  proposed  representation 
of,  at  elections,  in  reform  bill 
(1854),  358. 

Moira,  Earl,  his  mission  to  the  Whig 
leaders,  110 ; the  “ Household 
Question,”  110. 

Morton,  Mr.,  moves  insertion  of 
Princess  of  Wales’s  name  into 
Regency  Bill,  147. 

Murray,  Lady  A.,  married  to  the 
Duke  of  Sussex,  221. 

Murray,  Mr.,  refused  to  kneel  at  the 
bar  of  the  commons,  421. 

Mutiny  bill,  the  passing  of,  post- 
poned, 77. 

“Nabobs,”  the,  their  bribery  at 
elections,  269,  272;  rank  them- 
selves among  the  “ King’s 
friends,”  270. 

Newcastle,  Duke  of,  in  office  at  ac- 
cession of  George  III.,  11;  resigns, 
30;  dismissed  from  lord  lieuten- 
ancy, 32. 

Newenham,  Mr.,  motion  for  address 
on  debts  of  Prince  of  Wales,  206. 

New  Shoreham,  bribery  at,  272;  dis- 
franchised, 273. 

Nomination  boroughs.  See  Bor- 
oughs. 

North,  Lord,  his  relations,  as  pre- 
mier, with  Geo.  III.,  48;  complete 
submission,  49,  51,  60;  his  over- 
tures to  Chatham,  51;  to  the 
Whigs,  52 ; his  ministry  over- 
thrown, 57,  58;  his  conduct  ap- 
proved by  the  King,  59 ; joins  the 
“coalition  ministry,”  63,  64;  dis- 
missed from  office,  69;  liberal  in 
creation  of  peers,  226 ; in  the 
bribery  of  members,  303;  with 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


477 


money  sent  by  George  III.,  ib. ; 
by  shares  in  a loan,  306 ; his  sec- 
ond loan,  307 ; approved  the  Mid- 
dlesex election  proceedings,  382; 
carriage  broken  by  mob,  400 ; his 
personalities  in  debate,  461. 

Northampton  borough,  cost  of  elec- 
toral contest  (1768),  272;  case  of 
bribery  from  corporate  funds,  327. 

North  Briton  (No.  45),  the  publica- 
tion of,  365;  riot  at  the  burning 
of,  367. 

Northumberland,  Duke  of,  supported 
in  bribery  at  elections  by  George 
III.,  274. 

Norton,  Sir  F.  (the  speaker),  sup- 
ports Dunning’s  resolutions,  55; 
his  speech  to  George  III.  touching 
the  civil  list,  197 ; altercations 
with,  463. 

O’Connell,  Mr.,  advocates  univer- 
sal suffrage,  &c.,  327,  330;  repri- 
manded for  libelling  the  house, 
410 ; his  position  as  an  orator,  457. 

Officers  under  the  crown,  disquali- 
fied from  parliament,  278,  294- 
299;  number  of,  in  parliament, 
118,  296,  298. 

Oldfield,  Dr.,  his  statistics  of  par- 
liamentary patronages,  288. 

Oliver,  Mr"  Alderman,  proceeded 
against  by  the  commons  for  com- 
mitting their  messenger,  398,  399. 

Onslow,  Mr.  G.,  orders  the  house  to 
be  cleared,  389 ; complains  of  pub- 
lication of  debates,  390,  394;  his 
sobriquet,  393. 

Orators  and  oratory.  See  Parlia- 
mentary Oratory. 

Oxford,  seat  for,  sold  by  corpora- 
tion, 271. 

Pains  and  penalties,  bill  of,  against 
Queen  Caroline,  114,  115. 

Palmerston,  Viscount,  his  removal 
from  office,  1851,  136 ; reform  bill 
of  his  ministry,  360;  his  resolu- 
tions on  the  Lords’  rejection  of 
the  paper  duties  bill,  448. 

Paper  duties  repeal  bill  (1860),  re- 
jected by  the  Lords,  257,  447. 

Parke,  Sir  J.  See  Wensleydale, 
Baron. 

Parliament,  government  by,  estab- 
lished at  the  Revolution,  15 ; sub- 
servient to  the  crown,  16 ; consti- 
tutional position  of,  at  the  acces- 


sion of  George  III.,  27;  violation 
of  parliamentary  privileges  by  the 
crown,  32,  36,  43,  49,  56,  72;  the 
reform  of  parliament,  120,  248, 
312;  the  dissolution  of  1807,  102; 
of  1830,  830;  of  1831,  121,  335; 
of  1834,  128;  of  1841,  134;  influ- 
ence of  families  over  parliament, 
139;  meeting  of  parliament  dur- 
ing George  III.’s  illnesses,  147, 
172;  commissions  for  opening, 
156,  357,  177;  second  opening  af- 
ter King’s  recovery  (1789),  159; 
adjournments  caused  by  King’s 
inability  to  sign  commission  for 
prorogation,  147-172;  parliament 
and  the  revenues  of  the  crown 
and  the  civil  list,  189-207 ; dura- 
tion of  parliament,  348;  motions 
for  triennial  parliaments,  349 ; 
time  between  summons  and  meet- 
ing of,  shortened,  355;  relations 
of  parliament  to  crown,  law,  and 
people,  364-450;  the  unreported 
parliament,  387,  n. ; publication  of 
debates,  390,  407;  petitions,  410; 
publicity  given  to  parliamentary 
papers,  408;  relinquishment  of 
parliamentary  privileges,  420 ; 
privilege  and  the  courts  of  law, 
422;  publication  of  papers  affect- 
ing character,  426 ; control  of  par- 
liament over  the  executive  gov- 
ernment, 427;  sketch  of  parlia- 
mentary oratory,  450;  group  of 
parliamentary  orators  of  the  age 
of  Chatham  and  Pitt,  451 ; of  la- 
ter times,  455 ; character  of  mod- 
ern oratory,  459;  personalities  of 
former  times,  460.  See  Commons, 
House  of ; Lords,  House  of.  * 

Pease,  Mr.,  his  case  cited  regarding 
Jewish  disability,  429. 

Peel,  Sir  R.,  obtains  consent  of 
George  IY.  to  Catholic  emanci- 
pation, 118;  his  first  administra- 
tion, 126;  his  absence  abroad, 
127;  ministerial  efforts,  128-130; 
advises  a dissolution,  129;  resig- 
nation, 130;  called  to  office,  132; 
declines  on  the  u Bedchamber 
Question,”  ib. ; his  second  ad- 
ministration, 134;  his  anti-reform 
declaration,  330;  character  of  his 
oratory,  457. 

Peerage,  number  of,  224;  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  230  and  n. ; an- 
tiquity of,  ib. ; claims  to,  231; 


478 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


changes  in  its  composition,  ib .; 
the  representative  character,  232; 
fusion  of  peerages  of  the  three 
kingdoms,  235 ; life  peerages,  237 ; 
to  women,  ib. ; peerages  with  re- 
mainders over,  238 ; authorities 
favoring  life  peerages,  ib. ; offer 
of  a life  peerage  to  Dr.  Lushing- 
ton,  239;  the  Wensleydale  peer- 
age, ib.  See  also  Lords,  House 
of;  Ireland,  peerage  of;  Scotland, 
peerage  of. 

Peerage  Bill  (1720),  rejected  by  the 
commons,  225. 

Peers,  scanty  attendance  of,  at  the 
House,  affecting  their  political 
weight,  257 ; social  relations  of, 
259-262 ; their  influence  at  county 
elections,  283 ; excluded  from  de- 
bates in  the  House  of  Commons, 
388.  See  also  Lords,  House  of. 

Pelham,  Mr.,  bribery  to  members,  a 
system  under,  301. 

Pembroke,  Earl  of,  proscribed  for 
opposition  to  court  policy,  56. 

Penryn,  the  disfranchisement  bill, 
327 ; proposal  to  transfer  the  fran- 
chise to  Manchester,  328. 

Pensions  from  the  crown  charged  on 
civil  list,  210-212 ; on  crown  reve- 
nues, 210;  restrained  by  parlia- 
ment, ib .,  212;  consolidation  of 
pension  lists,  214;  regulation  of 
(1837),  ib. ; bribery  by  pensions, 
294;  holders  of,  disqualified  from 
parliament,  295. 

Perceval,  Mr.,  forms  an  administra- 
tion, 96 ; denies  secret  advice  to 
George  III.,  97 ; dissolution  during 
his  ministry,  102;  his  relations 
with  the  King,  103;  his  position 
at  commencement  of  regency, 
106;  obnoxious  to  the  Regent  as 
adviser  of  Princess  Caroline,  107 ; 
ministerial  negotiations  at  his 
death,  109. 

Petitions  to  parliament,  commence- 
ment of  the  practice,  410;  of  po- 
litical petitions,  411;  forbidden 
under  Charles  II.,  ib.\  commence- 
ment of  the  modern  system,  412 ; 
petitions  rejected,  ib. ; objected  to 
by  George  III.,  414;  progress  of 
the  system,  ib. ; the  numbers  pre- 
sented of  late  years,  416,  n. ; 
abuses  of  petitioning,  417 ; de- 
bates on  presentation  of,  re- 
strained, ib. ; for  grant  of  public 


money  to  be  recommended  by  the 
crown,  443. 

Pitt,  Mr.  See  Chatham,  Earl  of. 

Pitt,  Mr.  William,  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  under  Lord  Shelburne, 
63 ; refusals  to  take  office,  64,  65 ; 
is  premier,  69;  opposed  in  the 
commons,  70-78;  his  attitude  re- 
specting a dissolution,  72;  final 
triumph,  78;  reflections  on  this 
contest,  71-78;  his  relations  with 
George  III.,  63,  82;  furthers  his 
views,  82;  in  opposition  to  the 
King  on  reform,  83;  quits  office 
on  the  Catholic  question,  85;  re- 
fusal to  abandon  that  question, 
87,  88;  his  mismanagement  of  it, 
88;  his  pledge  to  the  King  not 
to  revive  it,  89;  again  in  office, 
90;  with  Addington,  91;  evades 
the  Catholic  question,  ib. ; his 
opinion  on  the  rights  of  Prince 
of  Wales  as  Regent,  149-152;  his 
letter  to  him  respecting  the  re- 
gency, 151;  moves  resolutions  for 
a bill,  ib.,  155;  proposition  as  to 
use  of  the  great  seal,  152,  156; 
introduces  the  bill,  158;  his  con- 
duct in  these  proceedings  consid- 
ered, 161;  confirms  the  King’s 
confidence  in  him,  162;  embar- 
rassment caused  by  the  King’s 
illness  on  his  leaving  office,  163, 
165;  brought  forward  budget  af- 
ter resignation,  164;  his  doubts 
as  to  the  King’s  sanity,  on  his 
return  to  office,  170;  profuse  in 
the  creation  of  peers,  226,  227 ; 
his  unfair  conduct  as  to  the  West- 
minster scrutiny,  281;  abolished 
some  of  the  Irish  nomination  bor- 
oughs, 288;  discontinued  bribes 
to  members,  304;  by  loans  and 
lotteries,  307 ; advocates  reform, 
315,  316;  his  reform  bill,  316; 
opposes  reform,  319;  his  position 
as  an  orator,  451. 

Pitt,  Mr.  Thomas,  moves  to  delay 
the  grant  of  supplies,  443. 

Placemen.  See  Officers  under  the 
Crown. 

Pledges  by  members  to  constituents 
considered,  418. 

Plunket,  Lord,  his  oratory,  457. 

Poole,  corruption  at,  271. 

Portland,  Duke  of  (1696),  enormous 
grant  to,  by  William  III.,  189. 

Portland,  Duke  of,  heads  the  “ coa- 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


479 


lition,”  64;  assists  George  III.  in 
opposing  the  Army  Service  Bill, 

Potwallers,  electoral  rights  of,  266. 

Prince  Regent.  See  Wales,  Prince 
of. 

Printers,  contest  of  the  Commons 
with,  389,  394.  See  also  Debates 
in  Parliament. 

Privileges  and  elections  committee, 
trial  of  election  petitions  before, 
291. 

Privileges  of  parliament.  See  Par- 
liament; Crown,  the. 

Public  money,  difficulties  in  the  is- 
sue of,  caused  by  George  III.’s 
incapacity,  178;  motions  for,  to 
be  recommended  by  the  crown, 
443. 

Public  Works  Commission  separated 
from  Woods  and  Forests,  210. 

Qualification  Acts,  354;  repealed, 
355. 

Queen’s  Bench,  Court  of,  decide  in 
favor  of  Stockdale,  424,  426 ; com- 
pel the  sheriffs  to  pay  over  the 
damages,  426. 

Queensberry,  Duke  of,  his  rights  as 
a peer  of  Great  Britain  and  of 
Scotland,  233. 

Rawdon,  Lord,  moves  address  to 
the  Prince  to  assume  the  regency, 
152. 

Reform  in  parliament,  arguments 
for,  312;  advocated  by  Chatham, 
313;  Wilkes,  ib. ; the  Duke  of 
Richmond,  ib. ; the  Gordon  riots 
unfavorable  to,  314;  Pitt’s  mo- 
tions, 315;  discouraging  effect  of 
the  French  Revolution,  319 ; Earl 
Grey’s  reform  scheme,  320;  Bur- 
dett’s,  322,  323;  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell’s, 323-329;  Mr.  Lambton’s, 
324;  Lord  Blandford’s,  326;  later 
cases  of  corruption,  327;  O’Con- 
nell’s motion  for  universal  suf- 
frage, 330 ; the  dissolution  of  1830, 
ib. ; impulse  given  by  French 
Revolution,  331 ; storm  raised  by 
Duke  of  Wellington’s  declara- 
tion, ib. ; Brougham’s  motion,  332; 
Lord  Grey’s  reform  ministry,  333; 
the  first  reform  bill,  334;  minis- 
ters defeated  by  the  commons, 
121,  335;  supported  by  the  crown, 
ib. ; the  dissolution  of  1831,  ib.] 


second  reform  bill,  122,  336;  six- 
teen peers  created  by  William 
IV.,  250;  bill  thrown  out  by  the 
Lords,  122,  250,  336;  proposed 
creation  of  peers,  123,  251,  337; 
resignation  of  reform  ministry, 
123,  252,  338;  supported  by  the 
commons  and  recalled  to  office, 
123,  252,  338;  the  third  bill 
passed,  124,  252,  338;  the  act 
considered,  338 ; Scotch  and  Irish 
acts,  340,  341 ; Irish  franchise  ex- 
tended, 341;  political  results  of 
reform,  130,  341,  437 ; bribery  and 
bribery  acts  since  reform,  341- 
347;  triennial  parliaments,  348; 
vote  by  ballot,  352;  reform,  later 
measures  for,  355-362. 

Regency  Act  (1751),  142;  the  Act 
of  1765,  144-146 ; Princess  of 
W'ales  excluded  by  Lords,  and 
included  by  Commons  in  the  Act, 
145;  resolutions  for  Regency  Bill 
(1788-9),  151-155 ; protest  against, 
155 ; proposed  restrictions  over  the 
Regent’s  power  to  create  peers, 
227 ; resolutions  accepted  by 
Prince  of  Wales,  155;  bill  brought 
in,  158 ; progress  interrupted  by 
Geo.  III.’s  recovery,  158;  com- 
ments on  these  proceedings,  159; 
comparison  of  them  to  the  pro- 
ceedings at  the  Revolution,  160; 
the  Regency  Act  of  1810,  argu- 
ments against,  173-175,  178;  res- 
olutions for  a bill  agreed  to,  175- 
177 ; laid  before  the  Prince,  177 ; 
bill  passed,  ib. ; Regency  Act 
(1830),  provides  for  accession  of 
an  infant  king,  182;  for  case 
of  a posthumous  child,  184;  the 
Regency  Acts  of  Her  Majesty, 

Regent,  question  as  to  origin  and  in- 
tent of  the  word,  153  and  n.  See 
also  Wales,  Prince  of. 

Reporters.  See  Debates  in  Parlia- 
ment. 

Representation  in  Parliament,  de- 
fects in,  264.  See  also  Reform  in 
Parliament. 

Revenues  of  the  crown,  its  ancient 
possessions,  186;  forfeitures,  ib. ; 
grants  and  alienations,  187 ; in- 
crease of  revenues  by  Henry  VII. 
and  VIII.,  188;  destruction  of 
revenues  at  Commonwealth,  ib. ; 
recovery  and  subsequent  waste, 


480 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


188,  189;  restraints  on  alienation 
of  crown  property,  189;  constitu- 
tional result  of  improvidence  of 
kings,  190;  settlement  of  crown 
revenues  by  parliament,  ib. ; rev- 
enues prior  to  Revolution,  ib. ; the 
civil  list  from  William  III.  to 
George  III.,  191-193;  settlement 
of  Civil  List  at  accession  of 
George  III.,  193;  charges  there- 
on, 194-199;  means  of  crown  in- 
fluence, 195 ; surplus  revenues, 
199;  regulation  of  civil  list,  200, 
204;  other  crown  revenues,  194, 
200;  loss  of  Hanover  revenues, 
204;  Duchies  of  Lancaster  and 
Cornwall,  ib. ; private  property  of 
crown,  205;  provision  for  royal 
family,  ib. ; mismanagement  of 
land  revenues,  207 ; proposal  for 
sale  of  crown  lands,  208;  appro- 
priation of  proceeds,  209;  pen- 
sions charged  on  lands  and  reve- 
nues, 211-214. 

Revenue  commissioners,  the,  first 
office-holders  disqualified  from 
parliament,  295 ; — Officers’  Dis- 
franchisement Bill  carried  by  the 
Rockingham  ministry,  62,  278. 

Revolution,  The,  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment established  at,  15;  posi- 
tion of  the  crown  since  the  Revo- 
lution, 16 ; revenues  of  the  crown 
prior  to,  190;  commencement  of 
permanent  taxation  at,  446. 

Revolutions  in  France,  effects  on  the 
cause  of  reform,  319,  331. 

Rialton,  Lady,  case  of,  cited  on  the 
“ Bedchamber  Question,”  133. 

Richard  II.,  revenues  of  his  crown, 
187. 

Richmond,  Duke  of,  his  motion  re- 
specting the  regency,  145 ; for  re- 
duction of  civil  list,  197 ; state- 
ment as  to  the  nominee  members, 
288;  advocates  parliamentary  re- 
form, 313;  his  motion  on  the  Mid- 
dlesex election  proceedings,  381. 

Roache,  Mr.,  opposes  Mr.  Wilkes  for 
Middlesex,  375. 

Rockingham,  Marquess,  dismissed 
from  lord-lieutenancy  for  oppos- 
ing the  crown,  32 ; made  premier, 
40 ; his  ministerial  conditions,  41 ; 
influence  of  the  crown  in  parlia- 
ment exerted  in  opposition,  44, 
45 ; dismissed  from  office,  46 ; 
statements  respecting  the  influ- 


ence of  the  crown,  55,  57;  his 
second  administration,  61 ; carries 
the  contractors’,  the  civil  list,  and 
the  revenue  officers’  bills,  62,  199, 
211,  278,  297,  309 ; and  the  rever- 
sal of  the  Middlesex  election  pro- 
ceedings, 383;  denounces  parlia- 
mentary corruption  by  loans,  306 ; 
his  motion  condemning  the  resolu- 
tion against  Wilkes,  378;  moves 
to  delay  the  third  reading  of  a 
land-tax  bill,  443. 

Rolls,  Master  of,  sole  judge  not  dis- 
qualified from  parliament,  299. 

Roman  Catholic  emancipation.  See 
Catholic  Emancipation. 

Romilly,  Sir  S.,  his  opinion  on  the 
pledge  required  from  the  Gren- 
ville ministry,  97;  his  justification 
of  the  purchase  of  seats,  275,  276. 

Ross,  General,  complains  of  court  in- 
timidation, 72. 

Rothschild,  Baron,  admission  of,  to 
parliament,  428. 

Rous,  Sir  J.,  his  hostile  motion 
against  Lord  North’s  ministry, 
59. 

Royal  family,  provision  for,  205,  207 ; 
power  of  the  crown  over,  214-222; 
exempted  from  Lord  Hardwicke’s 
Marriage  Act,  216. 

Royal  household,  the,  a question  be- 
tween the  Whig  leaders  and  the 
Regent,  110;  profusion  in  George 
III.’s,  197 ; proposed  reduction  of 
William  IY.’s  household,  203. 

Royal  Marriage  Act  (1772),  49,  217 ; 
its  arbitrary  principles,  218. 

Royal  Sign-Manual  Bill,  authorizing 
George  IY.  to  sign  documents  by 
a stamp,  179-181. 

Russell,  Lord  John,  his  first  motions 
for  reform,  323-329;  his  disfran- 
chisement bills,  324-328;  advo- 
cates the  enfranchisement  of 
Leeds,  Birmingham,  and  Man- 
chester, 329;  moves  the  first  re- 
form bill,  330;  his  later  reform 
measures,  356,  360. 

St.  Albans  disfranchised,  343. 

Salomons,  Mr.,  admission  of,  to  Par- 
liament, 429. 

Sandwich,  Earl  of,  denounces  Wilkes 
for  the  “Essay  on  Woman,”  368; 
“Jemmy  Twiteher,”  369,  n. 

Savile,  Sir  G.,  his  motion  condemn- 
ing the  resolution  against  Wilkes, 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


481 


377 ; his  bills  to  secure  the  rights 
of  electors,  382. 

Sawbridge,  Mr.,  his  motion  for  re- 
form, 317 ; for  shortening  duration 
of  parliament,  349. 

Say  and  Sele,  Lord,  his  apology,  to 
Mr.  Grenville  for  refusing  a bribe, 
303. 

Scot  and  lot,  a franchise,  266. 

Scotland,  defective  representation  of, 

prior  to  reform  bill,  283,  288. 

hereditary  crown  revenues  of,  194, 
201;  pensions  charged  upon,  210, 
213;  consolidation  of  Scotch  and 
English  civil  lists,  214. peer- 

age of,  the  representative  peers  of, 
224;  Scottish  peers  created  peers 
of  England,  232;  alleged  disa- 
bility. 233;  rights  of  representa- 
tive peers,  *6.,  234;  probable  ab- 
sorption of  Scottish  peerage  into 
that  of  the  United  Kingdom,  235. 

Scottish  judges  disqualified, 

298. Reform  Act  of,  339. 

Scott,  Sir  John,  the  ministerial  ad- 
viser during  the  regency  proceed- 
ings, 160. 

Secret  service  money,  issue  of,  re- 
strained, 199 ; statement  of  amount 
of,  302. 

Selkirk,  Earl  of,  supports  the  King 
on  the  Catholic  question,  100. 

Septennial  Act,  efforts  to  repeal,  348 ; 
arguments  against,  349 ; in  favor, 
350. 

Shaftesbury,  bribery  at,  273. 

Shaftesbury,  Lord,  publishes  a de- 
bate as  a pamphlet,  390. 

Sheil,  Mr.,  character  of  his  oratory, 
458. 

Shelburne,  Earl  of,  dismissed  from 
command  for  opposition  to  the 
crown,  36 ; his  motion  on  the  pub- 
lic expenditure,  55;  on  the  in- 
timidation of  peers,  56;  his  ad- 
ministration, 62 ; supports  the  roy- 
al influence,  ib. 

Sheridan,  Mr.,  character  of  his  ora- 
tory, 453. 

Shrewsbury,  Duke  of,  his  precedent 
cited  as  to  the  temporary  concen- 
tration of  offices  in  the  "Duke  of 
Wellington,  127. 

Sidmouth,  Yiscount,  withdrew  from 
Pitt’s  administration,  91;  takes 
office  under  Lord  Grenville,  92; 
joins  George  III.  in  opposing  the 
Army  Service  Bill,  94;  resigns  of- 
VOL.  I.  31 


fice,  ib. ; supports  the  King,  ib ., 
100.  See  also  Addington,  Mr. 

Slave  Trade,  abolition  of,  advocated 
by  petitions  to  parliament,  413. 

Smith,  Mr.  W.,  his  anecdote  as  to 
bribery  of  members  by  Lord  North, 
304,  n. 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
elected  during  George  III.’s  inca- 
pacity, 154 ; altercations  with,  462 ; 
increased  authority  of  the  chair, 
ib. 

Spencer,  Earl,  election  expenses  of, 
272. 

Stafford,  Marquess  of,  his  motion 
on  the  pledge  exacted  from  the 
Grenville  ministry,  99. 

Stamp  Act  (American),  influence  of 
the  crown  exerted  against  repeal 
of,  43. 

Steele,  Sir  R.,  opposes  Peerage  Bill, 
226. 

Stockdale,  Mr.,  his  actions  against 
Hansard  for  libel,  424-428;  com- 
mitted for  contempt,  427. 

Strangers,  exclusion  of,  from  de- 
bates in  parliament,  384;  com- 
mencement of  their  attendance, 
386 ; attendance  of  ladies,  ib. ; 
their  exclusion,  ib .,  n. ; presence 
of  strangers  permitted,  406. 

Sudbury,  seat  for,  offered  for  sale, 
270 ; disfranchised,  343. 

Sunderland,  Lady,  case  of,  cited  on 
the  “Bedchamber  Question,”  133. 

Supplies  to  the  crown  delayed,  73, 
76,  443;  refused,  440;  granted, 
441. 

Surrey,  Earl  of,  his  motion  on  the 
dismissal  of  the  “ coalition, ”*73. 

Sussex,  Duke  of,  votes  against  a 
Regency  Bill,  175;  his  marriages, 
221. 

Taxation  and  expenditure,  control 
of  the  commons  over,  191,  439, 
444;  temporary  and  permanent 
taxation,  446. 

Taylor,  Sir  H.,  his  circular  letter,  by 
command  of  William  IY.,  to  op- 
position peers,  124. 

Temple,  Earl,  proscribed  for  intima- 
cy with  Wilkes,  36;  agent  in  the 
exertion  of  the  crown  influence 
against  India  Bill,  66,  67;  em- 
ployed to  dismiss  the  “coalition,” 
69 ; accepts  and  resigns  office, 
ib. 


482 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


Tennyson,  Mr.,  motions  to  shorten 
duration  of  parliament,  349. 

Thompson,  proceeded  against  for 
publishing  debates,  394;  interpo- 
sition of  the  city  authorities,  396. 

Thurlow,  Lord,  negotiates  for  George 
III.  with  the  Whigs,  53;  his  ad- 
vice to  the  King  on  proposed  re- 
treat to  Hanover,  64;  cooperates 
in  his  opposition  to  the  India  Bill, 
66,  67 ; is  made  Lord  Chancellor, 
70;  supports  the  resolutions  fora 
Regency,  153;  affixes  the  great 
seal  to  commissions  under  au- 
thority of  parliament,  155-157 ; 
announces  the  King’s  recovery, 
158;  resists  the  Cricklade  Dis- 
franchisement Act,  273. 

Tory  party  supplies  the  greater  num- 
ber of  the  “King’s  friends,”  84; 
ascendency  of,  under  George  IV., 
112 ; ascendency  of,  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  248. 

Townshend,  Mr.,  his  manoeuvre  to 
secure  a share  in  a loan,  305 ; his 
proposed  land  tax  reduced  by  the 
commons,  442. 

Treasury  warrants,  for  issue  of  pub- 
lic money  during  George  III.’s  in- 
capacity, 178. 

Underwood,  Lady  C.,  married  the 
Duke  of  Sussex,  221. 

Universal  suffrage,  motions  for,  314, 
323,  330. 

Victoria,  Queen,  her  Majesty,  her 
accession,  131;  the  ministry  then 
in  office,  ib. ; her  household,  ib. ; 
the  “Bedchamber  Question,”  132, 
134;  her  memorandum  concern- 
ing acts  of  government,  135;  ju- 
dicious exercise  of  her  authority, 
138;  the  Regency  Acts  of  her 
reign,  185;  her  civil  list,  203; 
her  pension  list,  214. 

Wakefield,  bribery  at  (1860), 
346. 

Waldegrave,  Dowager  Countess  of, 
married  to  the  Duke  of  Glouces- 
ter, 215. 

Waldegrave,  Earl  of,  his  opinion 
on  the  education  of  George  III., 
22. 

Wales,  Prince  of  (George  IV.), 
united  with  the  opposition,  84; 
his  character,  105;  subject  to 


court  influence,  ib. ; indifferent  to 
politics  and  political  friends,  106, 
108 ; his  separation  from  the 
Whigs,  108,  111;  raises  and  dis- 
appoints their  hopes,  107 ; propo- 
sals for  their  union  with  the  To- 
ries, 108,  199;  the  “household” 
question  between  him  and  the 
Whigs,  110;  debates  as  to  his 
rights  as  Regent  (I788),  149-152; 
disclaims  his  rights,  151 ; his  re- 
ply to  the  Regency  scheme,  154 ; 
accepts  the  resolutions,  155 ; name 
omitted  from  commission  to  open 
parliament,  157 ; the  address  from 
the  Irish  parliament,  162;  accepts 
resolutions  for  Regency  Bill  ( 1810), 
176;  his  civil  list,  201;  his  debts, 
205 ; his  marriage  with  Mrs.  Fitz- 
herbert,  220 ; the  guardianship  over 
Princess  Charlotte,  222. 

Wales,  Prince  of,  Duchy  of  Corn- 
wall his  inheritance,  204. 

Wales,  Princess  Dowager  of,  her 
influence  over  George  III.,  22; 
advocates  the  exercise  of  his  per- 
sonal authority,  33;  the  insertion 
of  her  name  into  the  Regency 
Bill,  145. 

Walpole,  Horace,  cited  in  proof  of 
parliamentary  corruption,  269,  w., 
301,  305 ; the  appointment  offered 
to  his  nephew,  297. 

Walpole,  Mr.,  secedes  from  Lord 
Derby’s  ministry  on  question  of 
reform,  360. 

Walpole,  Sir  R.,  opposes  Peerage 
Bill,  225;  displaced  from  office 
by  vote  on  election  petition,  291 ; 
bribery  of  members  a system  un- 
der, 300;  the  charges  of  bribery 
not  proved,  301;  his  remark  on 
misrepresentations  by  reporters, 
393. 

Warburton,  Bishop,  his  name  af- 
fixed to  notes  in  the  “ Essay  on 
Woman,”  368. 

Ward,  Mr.,  advocates  vote  by  ballot, 
354. 

Wellesley,  Marquess,  commissioned 
to  form  a ministry,  109. 

Wellington,  Duke  of,  obtains  con- 
sent of  George  IV.  to  Catholic 
emancipation,  119 ; anti-reform 
character  of  his  ministry,  329 ; 
his  anti-reform  declaration,  331; 
fails  to  form  an  anti-reform  min- 
istry, 123,  252;  forms  a ministry 


INDEX  TO  YOL.  I. 


483 


with  Peel,  125,  126;  his  assump^ 
tion  of  different  cabinet  offices 
during  Peel’s  absence,  127 ; his 
opinion  on  proposed  creation  of 
new  peers,  253;  his  position  as 
an  orator,  457. 

Wensleydale,  Baron,  the  life  peer- 
age case  (1856),  239-242. 

West  India  duties,  the,  vested  in 
the  crown  till  accession  of  Will- 
iam IV.,-  202. 

Westminster  election  (1784),  Fox’s 
vexatious  contest  at,  280;  scru- 
tiny, and  writ  withheld,  281 ; act 
passed  in  consequence,  282. 

Westmoreland  county,  expense  of 
a contested  election  for,  283. 

Weymouth,  Lord,  overtures  to,  from 
Gieo.  III.,  52;  libelled  by  Wilkes, 
370. 

Wharncliffe,  Lord,  his  motion  against 
the  dissolution  (1831),  122,  432. 

Wheble  proceeded  against  for  pub- 
lishing debates,  394;  discharged 

✓ from  custody  by  Wilkes,  396. 

Whig  party,  the,  period  of  ascen- 
dency of,  20;  regarded  with  jeal- 
ousy by  George  III.,  23,  26,  45; 
proscription  of,  under  Lord  Bute, 
32;  position  at  time  of  regency, 
106, 107 ; separation  between  them 
and  Prince  Regent,  106,  108, 
111;  decline  office  on  the  “House- 
hold Question,”  110;  unsuccessful 
against  the  ministry,  112;  es- 
pouse the  Queen’s  cause,  116; 
lose  the  confidence  of  William 
IV.,  124;  ascendency  in  House 
of  Lords,  248. 

Whitaker,  Mr.,  opposes  Wilkes  for 
Middlesex,  375. 

Whitbread,  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  the 
Perceval  ministry,  98;  moves  to 
omit  Lord  Eldon’s  name  from  the 
council  of  regency,  171. 

Whittam,  a messenger  of  the  house, 
committed  by  the  Lord  Mayor  for 
apprehending  a printer,  397 ; his 
recognizance  erased,  398;  saved 
from  prosecution,  399. 

Wilkes,  Mr.,  advocates  parliamen- 
tary reform,  313;  denied  his  par- 
liamentary privilege,  365;  pro- 
ceeded against  for  libel  in  the 
“North  Briton,”  366,  368;  ab- 
sconds, and  is  expelled,  368 ; re- 
turned for  Middlesex,  370;  com- 
mitted, ib. ; accusations  against 


Lord  Mansfield,  ib. ; question  he 
raised  at  the  bar  of  the  house, 
ib. ; expelled  for  libel  on  Lord 
Weymouth,  371;  reelected,  374; 
again  elected,  but  Luttrell  seated 
by  the  house,  375;  elected  aider- 
man,  ib. ; complaint  against  dep- 
uty-clerk of  the  crown,  382;  takes 
his  seat,  ib.;  lord  mayor,  383;  the 
resolution  against  him  expunged, 
61,  383 ; instigates  the  publication 
of  debates,  392 ; interposes  to  pro- 
tect the  printers,  395;  proceeded 
against  by  the  commons,  397 ; ad- 
vocates pledges  to  candidates  by 
members,  418. 

William  III.,  his  personal  share  in 
the  government,  19 ; his  sign-man- 
ual affixed  by  a stamp,  181 ; rev- 
enues of  his  crown,  189;  grants 
to  his  followers,  ib. ; his  civil  list, 
191;  tries  to  influence  parliament 
by  the  multiplication  of  offices, 
294;  bribes  to  members  during 
reign  of,  300;  popular  addresses 
to,  praying  dissolution  of  parlia- 
ment, 432. 

William  IV.  supports  parliamentary 
reform,  120;  dissolves  parliament 
(1831),  121,  335;  created  sixteen 
peers  in  favor  of  reform,  250; 
further  creation  of  peers  proposed, 
123,  251,  337 ; exerts  his  influence 
over  the  peers,  123,  252,  338 ; with- 
draws his  confidence  from  the  re- 
form ministry,  124 ; suddenly  dis- 
misses the  Melbourne  ministry, 
125;  the  Wellington  and  Peel 
ministry,  126 ; the  Melbourne  min- 
istry reinstated,  130,  131 ; regency 
question  on  his  accession,  182;  as 
to  rights  of  a king’s  posthumous 
child,  184;  his  civil  list,  202; 
proposed  reduction  of  the  house- 
hold, 203;  surrenders  the  four 
and  a half  per  cent,  duties, 
214. 

Williams,  Sir  Hugh,  passed  over  in 
a brevet  for  opposition  to  court 
policy,  51. 

Windham,  Mr.,  his  position  as  an 
orator,  454. 

Wines  and  Cider  Duties  Bill  (1763), 
first  money  bill  divided  upon  by 
the  Lords,  447. 

“ Woman.  Essay  on,”  Wilkes  prose- 
cuted for  publishing,  368. 

Woods,  Forests,  and  Land  Reve- 


484 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


nues  Commission,  209;  separated 
from  Public  Works,  210. 

Wortley,  Mr.  S.,  his  motion  for  ad- 
dress to  Regent  to  form  an  effi- 
cient ministry,  110. 

Wray,  Sir  C.,  opposed  Fox  at  the 
Westminster  election,  281. 

Writs  for  new  members,  doubt  re- 
specting issue  of,  during  King’s 
illness,  149;  writs  of  summons 
for  elections,  addressed  to  return- 
ing officers,  356. 


END  OF 


Yarmouth,  freemen  , of,  disfran- 
chised, 343. 

York,  Duke  of,  opposes  a regency 
bill,  155,  175;  his  name  omitted 
from  commission  to  open  parlia- 
ment, 157,  177 ; attached  to  Lady 
Mary  Coke,  216. 

Yorke,  Mr.,  enforces  the  exclu- 
sion of  strangers  from  debates, 
404. 

Yorkshire  petition,  the,  for  parlia- 
mentary reform,  315,  412. 


VOL.  I. 


CAMBRIDGE:  PRINTED  BY  H.  O.  HOUGHTON. 


„ * 

* 4 

'***■  ■ * 


& 


